From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/24] C6X: devicetree support Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:57:34 +0200 Message-ID: <201109281657.34471.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1317155405-26235-1-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com> <201109281531.36792.arnd@arndb.de> <1317221051.2580.76.camel@deneb.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:61953 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754325Ab1I1O5k (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:57:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1317221051.2580.76.camel@deneb.redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mark Salter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Grant Likely On Wednesday 28 September 2011, Mark Salter wrote: > > Other architectures allow simply appending the device tree to the > > kernel image file, which is more convenient for users and does > > not require much kernel support. Have you tried this? > > Well, I considered it. My main reason for doing it this way was one of > debugging convenience. The debugger loads an ELF file and while I was > making lots of device tree changes in the tree and in the code, it was > more convenient to have one ELF file to deal with rather than an ELF > file and a dtb. And the thought was to get rid of it altogether once > bootloader support comes along. Maybe the thing to do would be to just > rip it out of the kernel. It can almost as easily be post-processing > step outside the kernel. Ok, if you plan to properly support it in the boot loader anyway, that's probably the best option. Arnd