Re: [PATCH 0/3] capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2

[Tony Lindgren <tony-4v6yS6AI5VpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>]

* Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org> [121105 06:36]:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
> <panto-wVdstyuyKrO8r51toPun2/C9HSW9iNxf@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 5, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> >> <panto-wVdstyuyKrO8r51toPun2/C9HSW9iNxf@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>> Assuming that we do work on a DT object format, and that the runtime resolution mechanism is approved,
> >>> then I agree that this part of the capebus patches can be dropped and the functionality assumed by generic
> >>> DT core.
> >>>
> >>> The question is that this will take time, with no guarantees that this would be acceptable from
> >>> the device tree maintainers. So I am putting them in the CC list, to see what they think about it.
> >>
> >> This is actually exactly the direction I want to go with DT, which the
> >> ability to load supplemental DT data blobs from either a kernel module
> >> or userspace using the firmware loading infrastructure.
> >>
> >> g.
> >
> > Hi Grant,
> >
> > That's pretty much our use case.
> >
> > Regards
> 
> Good. I'm about 80% though putting together a project plan of what is
> required to implement this. I'll post it for RFC shortly. I would
> appreciate feedback and help on flushing out the design.

Great, sounds like almost-a-plan then :)

Regards,

Tony