From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@pengutronix.de>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: Question on mpc52xx_common.c
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:07:58 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47FBD09E.80504@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080408194517.GX13814@pengutronix.de>
Robert Schwebel wrote:
> Well observed; isn't this the prove of the assumption that the whole
> device tree idea is not working? It is *always* inconsistent and it is
> *maintenance hell* because out-of-tree ports do *always* breakt because
> of string inconsistencies. We have just ported a 8260 board from 2.6.22
> to 2.6.25 and it is almost 100% oftree porting.
There's going to be more churn in the initial stages than down the road.
82xx had barely been added to arch/powerpc in 2.6.22, and there was
little review of the initial device tree bindings.
> The ARM method of using just a device number is so much easier ...
Yeah, it's so much fun to have to allocate a globally unique number for
every minor tweak of a board, and to have to maintain a mapping from
said numbers to information that is semantically equivalent to a device
tree but in less maintainable form in the kernel source.
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-08 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <m21w5map5f.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
[not found] ` <m2wsne9a4c.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
2008-04-03 19:00 ` Question on mpc52xx_common.c Grant Likely
2008-04-07 22:31 ` Matt Sealey
2008-04-08 2:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2008-04-08 2:25 ` Grant Likely
[not found] ` <23d2e4300804071926n57746a3cj551ef38bf10486c7@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <47FB3CD6.2090706@genesi-usa.com>
2008-04-08 14:52 ` Grant Likely
2008-04-08 19:45 ` Robert Schwebel
2008-04-08 20:07 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2008-04-08 23:51 ` David Gibson
2008-04-09 6:18 ` Wolfgang Denk
2008-04-08 20:12 ` Timur Tabi
2008-04-08 21:26 ` Grant Likely
2008-04-08 21:51 ` Segher Boessenkool
2008-04-09 16:46 ` Matt Sealey
2008-04-10 6:39 ` Robert Schwebel
2008-04-08 7:56 ` Sven Luther
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47FBD09E.80504@freescale.com \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=r.schwebel@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.