From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mitch Bradley Subject: Re: precedence of built-in vs. platform trees? Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:06:40 -1000 Message-ID: <50B78810.8010508@firmworks.com> References: <50B7033C.3030204@jonmasters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: 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: devicetree-discuss , arm-TuqUDEhatI4ANWPb/1PvSmm0pvjS0E/A@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 11/29/2012 1:46 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Jon Masters wrote: >> Hey guys, >> >> I apologize if I should have RTFM. If a platform provides a device tree >> at boot time, and the kernel also has a tree appended, what behavior is >> supposed to happen? i.e. what is the standard that is anticipated here? > > Hmmm, nobody has asked that before. I don't think it is really defined :-) > > I presume that the built-in DT will end up getting used from what I > remember about the code. That sounds like the right default, but it would be nice if one could override it with a cmdline option. It's *usually* easier to change the kernel than the platform firmware or bootloader, but there are exceptions. In our (OLPC's) case, DT mods can be made trivially by editing a script (and the firmware includes an editor). We use this feature all the time in development, and sometimes even for customers, for testing bug fixes. > > g. > _______________________________________________ > devicetree-discuss mailing list > devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss >