From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:41:49 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: Mikrotik RouterBoard 333 Message-ID: <20080715014149.GH26640@yookeroo.seuss> References: <20080708042631.GB7328@yookeroo.seuss> <4ca5bd814ebc5d76508d40503f4884db@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4ca5bd814ebc5d76508d40503f4884db@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:17:36AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> Its firmware apparently provides a flattened device tree to the OS. >> And while this step towards world domination is flattering, it's an >> example of what I feared when people first got enthusiastic about the >> idea of including flattened device trees in firmwares. The tree has >> not, AFAIK, been past this list, and has apparently not been reviewed >> by someone knowledgeable about device trees. In short, it's crap, and >> now that it's embedded in the firware we can't really fix it. > > Can't you build a kernel with a blob that overrides the > firmware-provided blob? Sorry, my phrasing was slightly unclear. Certainly we can work around a firmware with a crap device tree by replacing it, if necessary. Basically that's just treating the firmware as though it's one of these old-style jobs which provides its tiny handful of necessary bits of information (memory size, maybe a few others) in a format that happens to resemble a device tree. But it seems kind of silly for firmware to go to the trouble of providing a device tree just for us to ignore it and substitute our own. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson