Jerry Van Baren wrote:
Scott Wood wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 08:44:46PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
I'm a half-ack. ;-) I'm partial to u-boot's implementation rather
than using a bootwrapper for obvious reasons. The u-boot
implementation takes the blob as a boot parameter and
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 08:44:46PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
I'm a half-ack. ;-) I'm partial to u-boot's implementation rather than
using a bootwrapper for obvious reasons. The u-boot implementation
takes the blob as a boot parameter and passes it along to the kernel
after doing
Other than that quibble, I agree that burning the blob into the
firmware
so that the firmware must be recompiled and reburned to change the
blob
is very undesirable.
I thought the device tree was *supposed* to be an interface between the
firmware and the kernel? What if the firmware produces
Scott Wood wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 08:44:46PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
I'm a half-ack. ;-) I'm partial to u-boot's implementation rather than
using a bootwrapper for obvious reasons. The u-boot implementation
takes the blob as a boot parameter and passes it along to the kernel
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:54:58PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
Scott Wood wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 08:44:46PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
I'm a half-ack. ;-) I'm partial to u-boot's implementation rather
than using a bootwrapper for obvious reasons. The u-boot
implementation
Its firmware apparently provides a flattened device tree to the OS.
And while this step towards world domination is flattering, it's an
example of what I feared when people first got enthusiastic about the
idea of including flattened device trees in firmwares. The tree has
not, AFAIK, been past
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:17:36AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Its firmware apparently provides a flattened device tree to the OS.
And while this step towards world domination is flattering, it's an
example of what I feared when people first got enthusiastic about the
idea of including
Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:26:32PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
Does anyone on this list have contacts with the makers of this board?
Its firmware apparently provides a flattened device tree to the OS.
And while this step towards world domination is flattering, it's an
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:26:32PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
Does anyone on this list have contacts with the makers of this board?
Its firmware apparently provides a flattened device tree to the OS.
And while this step towards world domination is flattering, it's an
example of what I feared
Does anyone on this list have contacts with the makers of this board?
Its firmware apparently provides a flattened device tree to the OS.
And while this step towards world domination is flattering, it's an
example of what I feared when people first got enthusiastic about the
idea of including
10 matches
Mail list logo
