From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [sodaville] [PATCH 02/11] x86: Add device tree support Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:19:36 -0800 Message-ID: <4D21F718.8010600@linux.intel.com> References: <1290706801-7323-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1290706801-7323-3-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1290807736.32570.143.camel@pasglop> <20101128134907.GA30784@www.tglx.de> <20101230082654.GB11721@angua.secretlab.ca> <4D21F3DB.90504@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D21F3DB.90504@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Grant Likely Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sodaville@linutronix.de, Rob Landley , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 01/03/2011 08:05 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/30/2010 12:58 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >> >> Right, but in all of those cases a boot wrapper provides the same >> functionality with better flexability, such as being able to provided >> the dtb image(s) at install time instead of compile time. >> > > Assuming the boot wrapper is written correctly. I have seen a number of > cases in which it was not, and it being "already locked into firmware" > and not changeable. > > It's a nice theory. And in theory, theory and practice agree. > By the way, this is the same reason we also allow the initramfs and even the command line to be compiled in. -hpa