From: "André Schwarz" <andre.schwarz@matrix-vision.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:26:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <488ED426.2070502@matrix-vision.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f8328f7c0807281105o13defccbt2a0a0321bbb4a46a@mail.gmail.com>
Ben Warren schrieb:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:
>> Ben Warren wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of
>>>> header
>>>> files, #defines, and #ifdefs...
>>> In many ways, yes. But are you an average Joe or a Linux kernel
>>> propellerhead?
>> Is u-boot work normally done by average Joes, and does the average Joe
>> really find the preprocessor mess more intuitive than a "propellerhead"?
>>
> You know what I mean. Some people like yourself do this for a living,
> and are involved day-to-day in its specification. Of course it's
> intuitive to you. For most people, getting U-boot going is one stage
> in the development process of software for an embedded device. They
> work on it for a few weeks or months, then on something completely
> different. A few months or years later, they come back to it.
You're absolutely right - just have a look at the vast lists of
maintainers/contributors ... they are "average Joes" like myself.
Realizing 2-3 projects each year should be possible without having to
re-learn from scratch.
>> While we're at it, let's re-write u-boot in Visual Basic. :-)
> Uh, yeah. I like the idea of a central repo for hardware info, and
> the device tree concept is good. My point is that the syntax, while
> concise and exact, can be intimidating. Just look at the amount of
> traffic on the mailing lists of people that don't understand what all
> the fields mean when specifying IRQs etc. Anything we can do to make
> it less so for noobies is a good thing for everybody.
>
Please keep in mind that WDenk is always watching if code is slowing
things down or increasing size significantly. Improving things is very
good - but not at the cost of size and/or speed. Configuring a board
using a dtb usually needs far more code being present than needed.
After all it's a bootloader and not another pseudo OS.
But don't get me wrong ! The device tree is a very nice and usefuly
thing ... for an OS.
regards,
Andr?
> cheers,
> Ben
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot-Users mailing list
> U-Boot-Users at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
MATRIX VISION GmbH, Talstra?e 16, DE-71570 Oppenweiler - Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 271090
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Gerhard Thullner, Werner Armingeon, Uwe Furtner
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-29 8:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-28 15:07 [U-Boot-Users] using a flat device tree to drive u-boot config Kumar Gala
2008-07-28 17:28 ` Ben Warren
2008-07-28 17:32 ` Scott Wood
2008-07-28 17:35 ` Ben Warren
2008-07-28 17:43 ` Scott Wood
2008-07-28 18:05 ` Ben Warren
2008-07-28 18:59 ` Scott Wood
2008-07-29 8:26 ` André Schwarz [this message]
2008-07-29 8:41 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-29 9:09 ` André Schwarz
2008-08-03 1:10 ` Jerry Van Baren
2008-07-29 16:41 ` Timur Tabi
2008-07-28 17:40 ` Grant Likely
2008-07-28 18:17 ` Kumar Gala
2008-07-28 19:07 ` Scott Wood
2008-07-29 7:54 ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2008-07-28 18:13 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2008-07-28 18:19 ` Kumar Gala
2008-07-29 14:30 ` Jon Loeliger
2008-07-29 15:51 ` Robert Schwebel
2008-07-29 15:51 ` Robert Schwebel
2008-07-29 16:46 ` Timur Tabi
2008-08-03 1:58 ` Jon Smirl
2008-08-03 7:51 ` Wolfgang Denk
2008-08-03 12:57 ` Jon Smirl
2008-08-03 15:47 ` Wolfgang Denk
2008-08-03 17:49 ` Timur Tabi
2008-08-03 19:06 ` Grant Likely
2008-08-03 20:08 ` Timur Tabi
2008-08-04 8:08 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2008-08-04 7:16 ` Jens Gehrlein
2008-08-03 19:45 ` Wolfgang Denk
2008-08-04 14:33 ` Timur Tabi
2008-08-04 15:31 ` Wolfgang Denk
2008-08-04 15:36 ` Timur Tabi
2008-08-03 20:47 ` Andrew Dyer
2008-08-04 15:02 ` Jon Smirl
2008-08-04 15:05 ` Timur Tabi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=488ED426.2070502@matrix-vision.de \
--to=andre.schwarz@matrix-vision.de \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox