Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Device Tree on ARM platform
From: Wolfgang Denk
Date: Thu May 28 2009 - 05:39:03 EST
Dear Robert Schwebel,
In message <20090528000707.GR6805@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you wrote:
> Until now, oftree has created more problems than it has solved for us.
> The idea works fine for well-known things like memory maps and
> interrupts. It works badly for corner cases, and embedded land is full
> of it. The effort to get the oftree stuff right is often more than a
> magnitude of order higher than the effort for the actual functionality.
Well, but isn't this also because the device tree dramatically
reduced the amount of effort to get a new board supported? We have
seen a number of cases where _only_ the device tree needed
significant efforts to get a basic BSP running on a new board.
Talking about ration of device tree efforts versus code writing
efforts is somewhat irrelevant when you ignore that the total effort
goes down. Sometimes significantly.
> That should be an alarm sign that something is wrong.
Maybe the interpretation of data?
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@xxxxxxx
If programming was easy, they wouldn't need something as complicated
as a human being to do it, now would they?
- L. Wall & R. L. Schwartz, _Programming Perl_
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/