From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from qmail.e-mind.com ([188.94.192.42]) by bombadil.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1e0QRR-0003Mo-PE for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 06 Oct 2017 11:05:20 +0000 References: <6f652c2e-d971-052d-8e96-3ae7ad984500@solidxs.nl> <20171006041153.xgrjynzwido3mjfj@pengutronix.de> <4201a4ed-f5ae-2cae-e07c-1e95dbb538df@solidxs.nl> <4cda0e44-6ac4-8186-2453-0d55919727ef@mev.co.uk> <0ad15ca1-bad1-a631-89fa-53ddc4ba224e@solidxs.nl> From: gianluca Message-ID: <724ccd1e-493c-b6dd-e0aa-ea65828fb6bf@eurekelettronica.it> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:04:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0ad15ca1-bad1-a631-89fa-53ddc4ba224e@solidxs.nl> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Kernel device tree gets modified with bootm command when CONFIG_OFDEVICE is enabled To: barebox@lists.infradead.org On 10/06/2017 12:28 PM, Marcel Hamer wrote: > Hello Ian, > >> There is a magic variable setting to leave the partition entries alone: >> >> global.of_partition_binding="donttouch" >> >> (Other meaningful values for this variable are "new" and "legacy", >> which controls whether the individual partitions are placed within a >> "partitions" node ("new") or not ("legacy").) >> > > Thank you for pointing that option out, I will certainly have a look at > that. > > I took the partitioning as an example, because it gave me the biggest > burden. But I guess in general I think the principle of fixing up the > kernel device tree should be optional to my opinion. > IMHO you Marcel, are missing the point. Do not changing device tree and passing it as-is to the kernel has the reason on systems non upgradable, non changeable during their life-time. i.e. routers and or smartphones. Usually they are provided with all stuff attached and normally everyting is working out-of-the-box. To my experience, we have a bunch of boards, and they are different each other by little stuff, such as number of uarts, gpios, screens/lcd, memory and storage size. I am letting BareBox to adapt a "generic-all-inclusive" device-tree with the correct "device-tree" to the kernel, so it can be used without hassle having and managing a single device-tree in our develpement studio. It is simpler to have a single device-tree which can be used over a plethora of boards based on the same root-hardware, than having a plethora of device-trees perfectly adapted with your plethora of devices. Do you agree? Regards, Gianluca -- Eurek s.r.l. | Electronic Engineering | http://www.eurek.it via Celletta 8/B, 40026 Imola, Italy | Phone: +39-(0)542-609120 p.iva 00690621206 - c.f. 04020030377 | Fax: +39-(0)542-609212 _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox