Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:07:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20070102.140749.104035927.davem@davemloft.net>
To: segher@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@laptop.org,
       jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de, wmb@firmworks.com, jg@laptop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Open Firmware device tree virtual filesystem
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <978466dd510f659cd69b67ee7309be28@kernel.crashing.org>
References: <459ABC7C.2030104@firmworks.com>
	<1167770882.6165.76.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<978466dd510f659cd69b67ee7309be28@kernel.crashing.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1006
Lines: 25

From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:37:32 +0100

> Leaving aside the issue of in-memory or not, I don't think
> it is realistic to think any completely common implementation
> will work for this -- it might for current SPARC+PowerPC+OLPC,
> but more stuff will be added over time...

I see nothing supporting this IMHO bogus claim.

If you can traverse the device tree using OFW calls, you
can do it to build the in-kernel copy of the tree too.

How the tree is populated, etc., is not an issue for the
common code, for sure.  Each platform does that in whatever
way is appropriate.

But the tree traversal, getting property values, etc. is indeed
a task for the common code and that is exactly what Ben is
suggesting.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/