[PATCH v4 19/21] drivers/of: Support adding sub-tree

Benjamin Herrenschmidt benh at kernel.crashing.org
Fri May 15 09:25:53 AEST 2015

On Thu, 2015-05-14 at 14:02 +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> > On May 14, 2015, at 10:47 , Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > 
> [snip]
> So I spend some time thinking about your use case and I think it boils down
> to this:
> I have a live tree in the firmware, I have made changes and I need to reflect
> those changes to the live tree in the kernel.
> Sounds like ‘how do I generate a patch for getting those two in sync'. No?

More or less.

> I can see where this might be useful for others as all.
> I think we really need to create a liblivedt like we have libfdt since
> we have a number of projects going about using/manipulating DT at runtime.
> 1. The linux kernel, with it’s own live tree implementation.
> 2. The device tree compiler (it has a live tree) custom implemented.
> 3. Your weird and wonderful (or wacky) firmware.
> 4. u-boot does use DT now, but it does with libfdt. I believe this is suboptimal.
> 5. barebox does DT as well.
> Most of what we want to do with DT can be abstracted in a library I think that
> all of those projects can use.
> What are your thoughts?

Well, we have at least two implementations, the kernel one and the one
in our OPAL firmware:


The latter uses some nice Rusty tricks (tm) for multiple argument

It would make sense to do a library somewhere yes. However, I need to
cut my firmware API pretty much today so I think for now I'll stick
to something Ad-Hoc for the PCI hotplug code that just passes the
bit of FDT with the new devices and leave the "grand project" of live
sync of the tree for later.

There are other implementations of live DT in various Open Firmware
variants out there, most are in Forth which I suggest you don't bother
with unless you enjoy pain, but I think at least one of these is
actually in C.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list