From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755871Ab3KFUbX (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:31:23 -0500 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([80.244.247.6]:54037 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754985Ab3KFUbW (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:31:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:31:02 +0100 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Pantelis Antoniou Cc: Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Stephen Warren , Matt Porter , Koen Kooi , Alison Chaiken , Dinh Nguyen , Jan Lubbe , Alexander Sverdlin , Michael Stickel , Guenter Roeck , Dirk Behme , Alan Tull , Sascha Hauer , Michael Bohan , Ionut Nicu , Michal Simek , Matt Ranostay , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 - V2] Introducing Device Tree Overlays Message-ID: <20131106203102.GB8662@breakpoint.cc> References: <1383676898-29819-1-git-send-email-panto@antoniou-consulting.com> <20131106190152.GA8662@breakpoint.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi Sebastian, Hi Pantelis, > It has been discussed. > > We are doing it because > > a) We tried to do it in u-boot and it has been a complete disaster. > Regular users just can't handle bootloader updates. How so? The "additional" dtb piece was deleted by accident as part of the u-boot upgrade? Do you maybe a link which describes the disaster? > b) It is similar to that. It was originally created for the beaglebone, > which has a concept of capes (similar to Arduino shields). > http://circuitco.com/support/index.php?title=BeagleBone_Capes > Turns out it's really useful to anyone doing reconfigurable hardware too, > so that's why FPGA people are thinking of using it. I am aware of this. My understanding is that those capes have hardware information encoded in an eeprom behind i2c _and_ you can't or should not replace capes at runtime. Naive as I am I *assume* it should be easy to read this eeprom in u-boot as part of the boot setup and extend the dtb before passing it to the kernel. In case this works well, the problem here is a) ? > c) There are people that want to tinker with Linux based hardware boards > but are not kernel developers. This gives them a way to do so without > having to recompile the kernel and/or reboot while tinkering. I understand that they want to avoid reboot. But they still need to recompile the device tree, don't they? Or does this allow to change the HW description without knowing the syntax of .dts? > Regards > > -- Pantelis Sebastian