On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 08:57:51AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:15:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > But when you have both atag and DT and the atag overrides the DT, that > > > means we have incorrect information in the DT, and code might later > > > rely on that information. > > > > > > IMHO when we allow passing a DT to a kernel while booting from an > > > existing boot loader that only knows about atag, the code that loads > > > the DT should be responsible for updating the DT with the atag > > > information, > > > not pass two conflicting sets of data into the actual kernel. > > > > I completely agree here. I /started/ from the position that ATAGs and > > DTB would coexist, and after extensive debate[1] my opinion turned around > > to it should be one or the other. Otherwise there are all kinds of > > questions about accuracy of the information and which takes > > precedence. > > And we've ended up with a fucked up situation which is extremely > fragile, and actually makes me _NOT_ want to convert any existing > platforms to use DT in the least.
Agreed. I don't think that anything older than OMAP2 is worth converting to DT. The return on the investment is simply not worth it, other than for experimental purposes. Nicolas _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
