> -----Original Message----- > From: > [email protected] > rg > [mailto:devicetree-discuss-bounces+stuart.yoder=freescale.com@ ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Mitch Bradley > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:10 AM > To: Laurent Gregoire > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Of the device tree binary format endianness on > little-endianplatform > > > > > Hi, > > > > We are currently investigating the use of a flattened > device-tree for > > configuring some boot parameters on a new ARM platform. ARM being > > little-endian, the first question that arise is whether we > should keep > > the .dtb binary format itself big-endian or switch to little-endian? > > Apparently the format does not specify endianness > specifically, and I > > did not found any relevant information concerning this. > > > > > I can't speak for flattened device trees specifically, but IEEE1275 > (Open Firmware) specifies that integers are encoded in > property values > in big-endian byte order. The model is > serialization/deserialization, > rather than overlaying a C struct on top of the data. > > > Perhaps this has already been decided somewhere on the > roadmap of using > > device-tree outside the PPC-world.
Please take a look at the ePAPR where the flattened device tree format is formally speced out. http://www.power.org/resources/downloads/Power_ePAPR_APPROVED_v1.0.pdf Integers in property values and in the DTB structure are all big-endian. Stuart _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
