precedence of built-in vs. platform trees?

[Mitch Bradley]

On 11/29/2012 1:46 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Jon Masters <jonathan at jonmasters.org> wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I apologize if I should have RTFM. If a platform provides a device tree
>> at boot time, and the kernel also has a tree appended, what behavior is
>> supposed to happen? i.e. what is the standard that is anticipated here?
> 
> Hmmm, nobody has asked that before. I don't think it is really defined :-)
> 
> I presume that the built-in DT will end up getting used from what I
> remember about the code.

That sounds like the right default, but it would be nice if one could
override it with a cmdline option.  It's *usually* easier to change the
kernel than the platform firmware or bootloader, but there are
exceptions.  In our (OLPC's) case, DT mods can be made trivially by
editing a script (and the firmware includes an editor).  We use this
feature all the time in development, and sometimes even for customers,
for testing bug fixes.

> 
> g.
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
>