On Wednesday 06 January 2010 16:31:00 Jeremy Kerr wrote: > Russell, > > > This is something which should be separate from the rest of the DT > > patch - could we have this as a patch which can be applied to the > > current kernel tree please? > > Sure, patch coming. > > The first three patches of this series (prefixed with arm:, rather than > arm- dt:) are all generic arm patches that don't specifically add device > tree support, would you like the other two as well? > > I'm in the process of rebasing my work onto a merge or your and Grant > Likely's test-devicetree branch, so future patches should be easier to work > with. > > Cheers,
What's the current status on the device tree for arm stuff? I'm going through some of my todo bookmarks and stumbled across http://lwn.net/Articles/367752/ and I'd like to poke at it under qemu. I've been patching the kernel kconfig stuff to let me plug various different arm processors into a versatile board (because it's convinced that you can't possibly have an armv6l versatilepb and qemu's -cpu option makes that easy). Feeding in a device tree (or better yet teaching qemu to generate one) sounds like a better long-term approach... Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
