On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 03:07:54AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > Hi Simon, > > first of all sorry for late reply. I am traveling and I have pretty busy > time now. > > 2015-09-09 20:07 GMT+02:00 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: [snip] > > There are Linux-specific properties, so I really don't see the > > difference. Don't forget that we are using device tree to control our > > boot loader, so it would be unusual to not see at least some > > U-Boot-specific properties. > > > > My understanding of /chosen is that it is for the OS. But in any case > > it would still be a binding change, wouldn't it? What makes you think > > that this scheme would be more acceptable as a binding change? > > > > I think we should move this discussion to device-tree mailing list. > I simple just don't think that OS/bootloader property in the device node is > a good idea. > Maybe there is better solution but i think adding OS/Bootloader to chosen > is just better option > then added this to every node. > Not sure if sequence matter or not but via one property you can also > control it.
I think that with ELC-E coming up and that once again there will be a DT BoF, we (the U-Boot community) need to show up there and in turn see how many folks we can also get to show up in our mini-summit. I've already bugged Pantelis about this a few times. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
