Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
KS2010: Development process
Posted Nov 4, 2010 12:01 UTC (Thu) by swetland (subscriber, #63414)
I'd be happy to see improvements to make it easier to maintain board files and such -- they can get a little unwieldy -- but I'm not convinced that a device tree approach actually improves the situation.
I've never worked on a production device (typically shipping between hundreds of thousands and millions of units) where having to compile a new kernel to pick up device-specific hardware support is the major pain point. Certainly I never have a canned, existing kernel that I'm going to just use with no modifications -- power tuning and debugging during stabilization guarantees that we're going to be spinning quite a few kernel builds until things are ready to ship.
Posted Nov 4, 2010 16:41 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
it's also not that you will take a kernel compiled for one device and change the devicetree file and load it on another device.
what they will do is make it so that there aren't 70 different subarchitectures in ARM that all have to be tested individually and replace it with a much smaller number with devicetrees identifying the minor details like where a particular piece of hardware is addressed. As such it will make it easier for people to maintain the kernel and make sure that it will work.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds