From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761115AbZE1IVG (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 04:21:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759826AbZE1IUv (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 04:20:51 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:39959 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756219AbZE1IUu (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 04:20:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Mitch Bradley Cc: Timur Tabi , devicetree-discuss , Janboe Ye , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rmk@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk In-Reply-To: <4A1DB855.2030608@firmworks.com> References: <1243408083.13460.14.camel@debian-nb> <4A1DB855.2030608@firmworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:17:41 +1000 Message-Id: <1243498661.3171.167.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 06:01 +0800, Mitch Bradley wrote: > If anybody is interested, the core ARM support has been added to the > Open Firmware tree at svn://openfirmware.info/openfirmware - the same > version of OFW that's used on OLPC - under an MIT-style license. This is > a full-featured Open Firmware whose lineage traces back to the original > Open Boot implementation that I wrote for Sun starting in 1987. > > It's not yet fully elaborated for specific platforms and devices, but it > does contain all the core IEE1275 device tree stuff and the standard > support packages. It gets you to an ok prompt on Beagle Board and > Gumstix Overo systems. The source-level and assembly-language debuggers > are fully functional. As currently configured on those systems, you can > load it into memory either via u-boot or instead of u-boot. > > This base ARM port, while newly released as FOSS, is quite solid, having > been developed some years ago for the Digital (RIP) DNARD system. > > I'd be happy to work with people to add deeper support for specific > device and platforms. That's actually great news ! While most of the discussion here revolves around whether to use a device-tree or not, mostly with the flattened device-tree format in mind, having a real OF implementation is always a much better option as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, Ben.