On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:51:18PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:57:36PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > On 08/14/2013 08:37 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Tom Rini wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > Well, the hard guideline should require that the DTB be updateable and > > > > not linked with nor generated by the bootloader or firmware. That > > > > implies some storage separate from the bootloader but this doesn't need > > > > to be a filesystem. > > > > > > Wait, what!? > > > > > > Much as I think a bunch of the current problems have been caused by > > > being overly keen to push the dtb into firmware, we shouldn't *ban* > > > the original Open Firmware model of the device tree, where it is > > > generated by the firmware and consumed by the OS. > > > > If the DTB generating firmware can be updated by the end user just as > > easily and safely as a standalone DTB then that's probably fine. But we > > do know that many people/organizations are not willing to let end users > > upgrade bootloaders due to the risks associated with such an operation. > > So in that case we may not suggest the DTB be tied to the > > bootloader/firmware. > > No, even then. I really don't think trying to ban the actual, > original Open Firmware model of device tree usage is sensible.
I don't think we should *ban* anything. This is rather about recommending best practice to people. And if your bootloader produces a bad DTB and you cannot let end users upgrade the bootloader then this is certainly against best practice. Nicolas _______________________________________________ cross-distro mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-distro
