From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <396AEAC7.D8CACCB2@agelectronics.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:37:11 +0100 From: Adrian Cox MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Porter CC: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Going from 2.2.12 to 2.2.17pre10 References: <20000709222943.A19611@cx258813-a.chnd1.az.home.com> <20000710225720.A23538@cx258813-a.chnd1.az.home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Matt Porter wrote: > Back to original point, I'm not against using a residual data or > device tree if it doesn't have to have dozens of fixups applied. > I just don't see that coming out of the proprietary hardware/software > houses to use their broken data... Residual data is useful for things like finding the memory size, and for chips designed inside Apple. For almost everything else Linux already contains a device tree, built by PCI probing when the kernel boots^*. I don't see much need for a parallel, architecture specific, device tree. - Adrian Cox, AG Electronics *) Apologies to MCA and Nubus users. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/