On 07/04/13 15:26, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Honestly I'm annoyed by this aswell. The devicetree contains a nice and
complete hardware description and it seems convenient to put hardware
related configuration data there aswell.
Yes
The problem is that hardware description and configuration data are two
completely different sets of data. The hardware description is static
for a given board and should (ideally) never change. The configuration
data instead is often usecase specific and changes over the lifetime of
a board. The configuration data can only handle a single (or maybe a
table of) static setup(s). It's a good way to specify a sane default or
a very special setup, but doesn't handle the case when some OS (or
version thereof) wants to have a static setup and another wants to
figure out the same data dynamically.
Agreed
For these reasons I am against throwing the two data sets into a single
pot. Still I also want to have the devicetree way to configure some
static setup items.
Sure but why does using the DT for both mean "throwing them into a
single pot?"
I think we need to seperate the ideas of "DT as a container format" and
"semantics of DT nodes".
The format is the same everywhere but the semantics could change in
different parts of the tree.
Since the DT is a tree structure surely all we need to do is agree on a
designated configuration root node
"linux-config" for example under which we put all configuration related
stuff specific to linux whilst
retaining the "hardware description only" rule for the rest of the DT.
Martin
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
