On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Pantelis Antoniou <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:06 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote: >> Sure, so if we add data type supplementary properties to the tree to >> indicate the data type as "indirect phandle", then kernel could refer >> to the index in the got-like table to fetch the actual phandle address >> (1-level of indirection), instead of directly using the address in the >> data field. >> > > I'm fine with this.
But if the data about phandles is already in the tree, then the need for a GOT simply goes away. The phandles can be fixed up directly and it is so much better because it works with existing parsing code after the merge is applied. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
