Kumar,
Right now I'm only looking a basic support. I know there are those who believe that u-boot actually does more manipulation than it should. I'll let Grant speak up if he wants to:).
John
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Aug 5, 2010, at 5:14 PM, John Rigby wrote:
Add fdt_fixup_memory_banks and reimplement fdt_fixup_memory to use it.
Signed-off-by: John Rigby john.rigby@linaro.org
common/fdt_support.c | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- include/fdt_support.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
John,
Do you have any sense of how far you intend to go w/device tree's on ARM?
I ask because I've been thinking we actually need to have "live tree" structure representation in u-boot (much like the kernel) to allow us to do some of the manipulations we are doing more and more of.
The problem w/libfdt is that use of 'offsets' to get to nodes can be problematic if the offset changes while manipulating it. There are ways around thus but a number of functions we do would benefit from a more live tree.
Wondering how far you envision ARM going w/device tree and u-boot doing node creations and fix ups.
- k
U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot