> Look, my goals are rather modest. I want to start where we are, put > devices behind a nice abstract interface one by one, picking apart the > pc.c hairball on the way. The idea is not to design the perfect, > all-encompassing abstract device interface, just to capture what we > need, and extend as we go. The abstract device interface makes a simple > machine builder possible, driven by tree-structured configuration. That > in turn makes it easier to make things configurable. Which can be > expected to lead to more configurability, when and where there's a need > for it. > > All this can be done in nice, safe baby steps. I don't need to come up > with an all-singing machine description fit for a picky kernel before I > can start doing something useful. > > Now, if you hand me such a configuration on a platter, I'd be a fool not > to take it. The catch: I need one for a PC.
I suspect these two goals may be contradictory. The PC machine is so hairy that you need a singing, dancing machine description to be able to describe it. OTOH if what you really want to do is configure the host binding side of things, then as I've mentioned before, I see that as been somewhat separate from the actual machine creation, and trying to combine the two is probably a mistake. I really don't want users to have to hack the machine config just to change the name of an image file. Paul _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
