On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:19:24 +0100 Mark Brown broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:55:07PM +0200, David Jander wrote:
Mark Brown broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
Other OSs are actively using device tree.
Interesting. I wasn't aware of "actively using". Sure, there's MacOS-X-ppc, IBM AIX, Oracle Solaris.... and I just discovered that Free-/OpenBSD also use them.
*BSD are the main ones to consider here.
Eliminating board specific code for audio is not a realistic goal, the configuration of modern audio subsystems is too complex and dynamic.
Why not? How complex could it be in order to not be able to describe it in a Device-Tree in some OS-agnostic way?
Note the "dynamic" bit - the configuration changes at runtime. Describing the hardware for something like a modern smartphone isn't particularly useful due to the flexibility, there are too many different ways of configuring the system and we need code to acutally take those decision.
Ok, but you could still describe the hardwired part of it (Audio muxes, codecs, busses and physical interfaces). Isn't that what OF is all about? In our case, its just a simple AC97 codec connected to a simple AC97 bus. Sounds like total overkill having to write a "fabric driver" for this.... while there are already quite a few that are all 99% the same!
The plan is to push the device trees out of the kernel into a separate repository.
Good idea.... but where should such a repository be hosted?
Still an open issue.
Seems like its hard to find a vendor- and OS-neutral entity to host this? OpenBIOS maybe?
Best regards,