From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <3F1564F6-3732-403B-BA6B-BFAB28568AEE@freescale.com> From: Kumar Gala Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:12:20 -0500 To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: Joel Schopp , linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux/PPC Development Subject: Re: Merging ppc32 and ppc64 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Aug 9, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>>>> I don't see the merge as changing the actual code that gets >>>>> > executed > >>>>> on any given platform very much, except in one respect: we are >>>>> > going > >>>>> to standardize on a flattened device tree as the way that >>>>> information >>>>> about the platform gets passed from the boot loader to the kernel. >>>>> >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^***********^^^^^^^^******^ >> > > Yes, and that is exactly what I do not want. We are not going > to require OF implementations that do not need yaboot or similar > to pass a flattened device tree to the kernel, eh? Also, there > is no reason why something like yaboot (with an OF still running > underneath) should have to care about anything device-tree related > at all; the OS can just as easily ask the OF itself. I was under the impression that ALL platforms regardless if the had a OF firmware or not would be using a flattened device tree. Any conversion between an OF tree to a flatten tree would end up happening in boot wrapper code going forward. - kumar