Matt Porter mporter at
Tue Oct 5 00:41:05 EST 2004

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 07:29:09AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 09:07:20AM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > Tom Rini wrote:
> [snip]
> > >I've been thinking about it, and I do believe that Ben's flattened OF
> > >tree wins the "show me the code" race, so lets go that way.  I'll add in
> > >that for most platforms we'll want to build up the tree at compile time,
> > >but U-Boot, and anything else smart enough can pass one in for real.
> > >
> > >Jon, I look forward to your patch. :)
> > >
> > >
> > Allow me, to cut in and plug my own thing.
> [snip]
> > I just create an argv of all the environment variables of the firmware
> > and I pass the psysical address of that NULL terminated argv array
> > to the kernel command line like so... "u-boot-env=0x0f000f00".
> The 'problem' I forsee with this is that we still have two methods for
> getting stuff in, an OF tree or env array.  If we got with a fake OF
> tree, we have just one method and we can always use it.
> [snip]
> > I know this is the Nth time this discussion is taking place bu IMO something
> > must be finally decided. I don't really care if my solution will be selected
> > as long as something is at last selected.
> As far as I'm concerned, unless some horrible problem springs up that
> we can't resolve, this is it.

Same here, I see that no one has raised a technical issue with the
flattened device tree method. Since it is a working mechanism AND it
unifies the arch, it's the clear choice over reinventing the wheel.
All we need is an implementation.


More information about the Linuxppc-embedded mailing list