Thanks for the notes. We did in the end resolve in favor of '@'. ron
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We are of course free to go away from the ePAPR flat device tree (we > > did already to some extent). > > I am not talking about the ePAPR flat tree. I am talking about the > flat tree as used in PowerPC Linux for many years now. > > > > I agree with Segher we should stay close to the "original". That's why > > we used dtc for our device tree creation to begin with. It has a > > recognition effect, making it easier for others to join in. > > It's also well-proven technology. And lastly, wouldn't it be nice if > we could hand-off the DTB to the kernel at boot -- bye-bye legacy > interfaces. > > > > Also, at some point we're not writing the DTS manually anymore > > anyways, so it doesn't really matter ;-)) > > You'll always have to write some of it by hand, in one form or another, > for some system-specific devices that cannot be probed or that you don't > want to probe for (PHBs, I/O bridges, ...) > > > Segher > > -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
