From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA2E9B7D4A for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 10:24:02 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: make the padding for the device tree a configurable option From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Timur Tabi In-Reply-To: References: <1274298809-12772-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> <1274304013.1931.6.camel@pasglop> <4BF4593E.8030101@freescale.com> <1274309050.1931.21.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 10:23:53 +1000 Message-ID: <1274315033.1931.25.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 19:03 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > The problem is that the code which allocates a block for the fdt is > completely distinct from the code that manipulates the fdt. We'd need > to put in either some kind of funky callback mechanism, or insist that > every fdt exist in a block of memory allocated by some specific method > (e.g. lmb). > > I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, it seems. No one is > willing to compromise on any of my ideas. It's hard to convince our > BSP developers that they should be pushing more code upstream when I > get so much resistance for a such a mundane change. I don't see why we couldn't add a callback to libfdt for allocation / reallocation. Cheers, Ben.