Request review of device tree documentation

[Grant Likely]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nico at fluxnic.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> So requiring that a bootloader can update the DT _independently_ of
>> everything else is a bit much for some devices.
>
> In my opinion, this use case you're illustrating above simply could
> continue to _not_ use DT at all.  If your NOR flash is so small that you
> cannot spare some extra erase blocks, then this is a deeply embedded
> profile the current DT-on-ARM push is not really meant for.  You would
> be much better with a minimally configured kernel with all the hardware
> info statically compiled into the kernel and get away without all the DT
> parsing code altogether, like you're already doing today.
>
> While I think DT for ARM has advantages, I don't see us dropping the
> legacy ARM methods anytime soon, especially for existing or extremely
> constrained targets.

I completely agree.

g.