On Oct 4, 2004, at 9:41 AM, Matt Porter wrote: > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 07:29:09AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 09:07:20AM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > > > Tom Rini wrote: > > [snip] > > > >I've been thinking about it, and I do believe that Ben's > flattened OF > > > >tree wins the "show me the code" race, so lets go that way.? > I'll add in > > > >that for most platforms we'll want to build up the tree at > compile time, > > > >but U-Boot, and anything else smart enough can pass one in for > real. > > > > > > > >Jon, I look forward to your patch. :) > > > > > > > > > > > Allow me, to cut in and plug my own thing. > > [snip] > > > I just create an argv of all the environment variables of the > firmware > > > and I pass the psysical address of that NULL terminated argv array > > > to the kernel command line like so... "u-boot-env=0x0f000f00". > > > > The 'problem' I forsee with this is that we still have two methods > for > > getting stuff in, an OF tree or env array.? If we got with a fake OF > > tree, we have just one method and we can always use it. > > > > [snip] > > > I know this is the Nth time this discussion is taking place bu > IMO something > > > must be finally decided. I don't really care if my solution will > be selected > > > as long as something is at last selected. > > > > As far as I'm concerned, unless some horrible problem springs up that > > we can't resolve, this is it. > > Same here, I see that no one has raised a technical issue with the > flattened device tree method. Since it is a working mechanism AND it > unifies the arch, it's the clear choice over reinventing the wheel. > All we need is an implementation.
I'm in agreement with Matt and Tom. We should only have one solution to this problem. - kumar
