From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>
Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de,
"devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:36:08 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5091FC38.2020806@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5091BAAA.5010809@firmworks.com>
On 10/31/2012 05:56 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 1:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread:
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/
>>
>> On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> a project I'm involved in uses a module/baseboard combo, and components
>>>> on either board are described in DT. I'm currently using separate dts
>>>> files which build upon each other with include statements, which works
>>>> fine for development.
>>>>
>>>> In production though, we will certainly have running changes (and hence
>>>> different versions) over the lifetime of the product for both the
>>>> baseboard and the module, and the hardware has support for identifying
>>>> the versions of both sides at runtime.
...
>> I start to believe that the cleanest solution to this would be to
>> have full DTC functionality in U-Boot and compile the tree
>
> ... which is exactly the way that Open Firmware does it, since the
> invention of the device tree. The model is that the boot firmware,
> which needs to know the system configuration to do its job anyway,
> exports that configuration via the device tree.
Doesn't OF generate the DT from internal data structures (although I
don't know where those come from...), whereas what Daniel mentions above
is more like the bootloader having access to a bunch of .dts fragments,
selecting the appropriate subset of those to use, parsing them into an
internal data structure (i.e. running dtc), and then generating a DTB
from it. The overall result is that the bootloader causes a DTB to be
generated at run-time, so at that level it's the same, but the
implementation seems pretty different.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-01 4:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <5087B919.2010006@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <508AD8F9.8030105@wwwdotorg.org>
2012-10-31 23:00 ` Merging device trees at runtime for module-based systems Daniel Mack
2012-10-31 23:13 ` Stephen Warren
2012-10-31 23:21 ` Daniel Mack
[not found] ` <5091AD78.3060701-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-31 23:56 ` [U-Boot] " Mitch Bradley
2012-11-01 4:36 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
[not found] ` <5091FC38.2020806-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>
2012-11-01 5:02 ` Mitch Bradley
2012-11-02 4:53 ` David Gibson
2012-11-06 23:05 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5091FC38.2020806@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
--cc=wmb@firmworks.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).