From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2 Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 07:34:45 -0800 Message-ID: <20121105153444.GG4953@atomide.com> References: <50924DA3.1060901@ti.com> <50925C49.7060004@ti.com> <50938108.5040507@ti.com> <40797D3D-D62C-4E15-B0DF-75636C1637EE@antoniou-consulting.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Grant Likely Cc: Kevin Hilman , Matt Porter , Koen Kooi , Pantelis Antoniou , linux-kernel , Felipe Balbi , Russ Dill , linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org * Grant Likely [121105 06:36]: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Pantelis Antoniou > wrote: > > > > On Nov 5, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Pantelis Antoniou > >> 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