From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:57:18 +1100 Message-ID: <20121115045718.GJ32290@truffula.fritz.box> References: <50999145.2070306@wwwdotorg.org> <509D9089.7020407@wwwdotorg.org> <5B124797-6DFD-4C5E-90D7-665AFD4A7873@antoniou-consulting.com> <50A12950.6090808@wwwdotorg.org> <20121113072517.GE25915@truffula.fritz.box> <7A051C2B-C4FB-41A0-8338-60B607EA3BC1@antoniou-consulting.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7A051C2B-C4FB-41A0-8338-60B607EA3BC1@antoniou-consulting.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pantelis Antoniou Cc: Grant Likely , Stephen Warren , Kevin Hilman , Matt Porter , Koen Kooi , linux-kernel , Felipe Balbi , Deepak Saxena , Scott Wood , Russ Dill , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi Grant, > > On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou [snip] > My intention wasn't never to make overlays overly portable. My intention > was to make them in a way that portability can be introduced if the boards > are 'close' enough, but not for arbitrary boards. > > There have to be compatible interfaces both on the base, and the overlay > dtbs. Right. And this is why I'm arguing that those interfaces should be described explicitly - using existing OF mechanisms like interrupt-map where possible, rather than having a very general, but very low-level interface to make arbitrary changes to the DT. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson