I agree with Kim. I would like to see some kind of merge of this an booting-without-of.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/13/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kim Phillips</b> <<a href="mailto:kim.phillips@freescale.com">
kim.phillips@freescale.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:47:29 -0700<br>"Grant Likely" <
<a href="mailto:grant.likely@secretlab.ca">grant.likely@secretlab.ca</a>> wrote:<br><br>><br>> This document specifies the requirements on the device-tree for mpc52xx<br>> based boards. These requirements are above and beyond the details
<br>> specified in the booting-without-of.txt document.<br><br>well, the definition of the compatible property has a different bias. I'm not saying the definition in booting-without-of is necessarily better (I know the document is too linux- and freescale-specific in places), I'm just saying that this document has good ideas, but is creating an unnecessary diversion, and amending booting-without-of would help maintain consistency with other platforms' efforts.
<br><br>Kim<br>_______________________________________________<br>Linuxppc-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org">Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org</a><br><a href="https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev">
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev</a><br></blockquote></div><br>