Re: [RFC] Device Tree Overlays Proposal (Was Re: capebus movingomap_devices to mach-omap2)

[David Gibson]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Grant,
> 
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote:

> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
[snip]
> My intention wasn't never to make overlays overly portable. My intention
> was to make them in a way that portability can be introduced if the boards
> are 'close' enough, but not for arbitrary boards.
> 
> There have to be compatible interfaces both on the base, and the overlay
> dtbs.

Right.  And this is why I'm arguing that those interfaces should be
described explicitly - using existing OF mechanisms like interrupt-map
where possible, rather than having a very general, but very low-level
interface to make arbitrary changes to the DT.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/