Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus moving omap_devices to mach-omap2)

David Gibson
2012-11-15T05:26:26Z

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote:

> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
[snip]
> My intention wasn't never to make overlays overly portable. My intention
> was to make them in a way that portability can be introduced if the boards
> are 'close' enough, but not for arbitrary boards.
>
> There have to be compatible interfaces both on the base, and the overlay
> dtbs.

Right. And this is why I'm arguing that those interfaces should be
described explicitly - using existing OF mechanisms like interrupt-map
where possible, rather than having a very general, but very low-level
interface to make arbitrary changes to the DT.

--
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_!