On 10/06/2017 12:28 PM, Marcel Hamer wrote:
Hello Ian,
There is a magic variable setting to leave the partition entries alone:
global.of_partition_binding="donttouch"
(Other meaningful values for this variable are "new" and "legacy",
which controls whether the individual partitions are placed within a
"partitions" node ("new") or not ("legacy").)
Thank you for pointing that option out, I will certainly have a look at
that.
I took the partitioning as an example, because it gave me the biggest
burden. But I guess in general I think the principle of fixing up the
kernel device tree should be optional to my opinion.
IMHO you Marcel, are missing the point.
Do not changing device tree and passing it as-is to the kernel has the
reason on systems non upgradable, non changeable during their life-time.
i.e. routers and or smartphones.
Usually they are provided with all stuff attached and normally everyting
is working out-of-the-box.
To my experience, we have a bunch of boards, and they are different each
other by little stuff, such as number of uarts, gpios, screens/lcd,
memory and storage size.
I am letting BareBox to adapt a "generic-all-inclusive" device-tree with
the correct "device-tree" to the kernel, so it can be used without
hassle having and managing a single device-tree in our develpement studio.
It is simpler to have a single device-tree which can be used over a
plethora of boards based on the same root-hardware, than having a
plethora of device-trees perfectly adapted with your plethora of devices.
Do you agree?
Regards,
Gianluca
--
Eurek s.r.l. |
Electronic Engineering | http://www.eurek.it
via Celletta 8/B, 40026 Imola, Italy | Phone: +39-(0)542-609120
p.iva 00690621206 - c.f. 04020030377 | Fax: +39-(0)542-609212
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
