On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 09:07:53AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011, Richard Cochran wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 09:00:08PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
 

quoted

Remember that one of the selling point for DT is to be able to boot
an existing kernel binary on yet-to-be-created hardware simply by
creating the appropriate DT description for it.

So, can you report from your own experience that it really works like
that?

No.  I'm firmly in the DT-still-has-to-prove-itself camp and I wish I 
I'd never had to deal with it.  I believe that the current way for 
configuring hardware on ARM is more reliable and less prone to errors 
and bugs such as what you described about Freescale powerpc boards.  

Yes, I would agree that the current way works well.

And for the record I don't believe the current crisis about ARM board 
code duplication can be directly linked to the lack of DT support on ARM 
even if many people are blending those issues together.

Sometimes it seems that DT is being promoted as a silver bullet.
 

quoted

I surely cannot.

If so then this whole DT idea has been oversold with false pretenses.  
In good faith I'm willing to try it out and so I'm working towards its 
implementation for ARM not against it, but if the DTS files are to be 
maintained out of tree then all I can see for the future is additional 
maintenance pain not less.

I think the DT advocates really believe in it (not with false, but
honest pretenses). Also, I agree that DT sounds great in theory, but,
in my experience, it has been not so great in practice.

Richard