On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Scott Wood <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Schwebel wrote: >> >> The oftree by design wants to be a complete hardware description. As you >> mention above, there are cases where you *nevertheless* need ad-hoc >> information about things *not* encoded into the device tree. >> >> This renders the whole concept ad absurdum. You need a machine number >> again - and if you need that: why not stay with the ARM model, define >> everything with platform data and avoid the whole thing? > > Because it's better to have a little platform specific code than a lot of > it?
Yes, exactly. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
