From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out.m-online.net (mail-out.m-online.net [212.18.0.9]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1AEDE388 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:19:59 +1100 (EST) To: Scott Wood From: Wolfgang Denk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] 8xx: Add support for the MPC852 based board from keymile. Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:11:32 EST." <20080318151132.GA17402@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:19:57 +0100 Sender: wd@denx.de Message-Id: <20080318161957.766A124349@gemini.denx.de> Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Heiko Schocher , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dear Scott, in message <20080318151132.GA17402@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote: > > Well, the device tree is a mechanism for communicating from the firmware > to the kernel, and if we could control the firmware better we'd just make > it set the pins properly to begin with. :-) Is this just a comment, or do you oppose Heiko's suggestion? Other uses of the device tree seem possible and reasonable, too. For example, we can use the device tree to configure the firmware (U-Boot in this case). Using the device tree to describe the pin configuration of the hardware sounds easier to me than hard-coding it in some source (or header) file - no matter if this is in the kernel and/or in the firmware. What do you think? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is no battle unless there be two. - Seneca