On 14:10 Fri 12 Aug , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:36:35AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 08:42 Fri 12 Aug , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 05:55:24PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > > drop CONFIG_DRIVER_SPI_IMX_<version>
> > > >
> > > > + if (cpu_is_mx51() || cpu_is_mx53()) {
> > > > + imx->chipselect = cspi_2_3_chipselect;
> > > > + imx->xchg_single = cspi_2_3_xchg_single;
> > > > + imx->init = cspi_2_3_init;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Please keep structs to the SoC specific data. We might want to add
> > > device tree support in the future, then we'll need pointers to
> > > SoC specific data.
> >
> > DT in barebox?
> >
> > So so it will increase the size a lot not sure it's really usefull
>
> We'll need limited device tree support anyway soon. When Shawn continues
> I won't be able to boot my boards soon without OF. Then I at least want
> to be able to adjust the command line (which is embedded in the device
> tree)
>
> Of course this adds to the binary size, but it's not huge. I'm currently
> experimenting with this and so far it looks promising. Anyway, it will
> be completely optional for people who don't want it.
I take a look too but my key point is do we nned the DT for internal use
Best Regards,
J.
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
