From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Gregoire Subject: Of the device tree binary format endianness on little-endian platform Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:46:25 +0100 Message-ID: <1234975585.17001.131.camel@pc-laurentg.intra.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org To: devicetree-discuss-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi, We are currently investigating the use of a flattened device-tree for configuring some boot parameters on a new ARM platform. ARM being little-endian, the first question that arise is whether we should keep the .dtb binary format itself big-endian or switch to little-endian? Apparently the format does not specify endianness specifically, and I did not found any relevant information concerning this. Perhaps this has already been decided somewhere on the roadmap of using device-tree outside the PPC-world. Any comments welcomed, Laurent GREGOIRE Embedded Software Engineering | TomTom | www.tomtom.com