On 11 Feb 05, Grant Likely wrote:
Hi all,
With several more engineers working on ARM device tree support, I'm going to start collecting the status of all the work that is going on (and I know about) and posting it in a regular status report, hopefully weekly, for the next few months until the all of the major features are implemented and working on several arm platforms. I'll try to use roughly the following format:
- latest news and status updates
- list of tasks with current state and who is responsible for them in
the same format as Launchpad blueprint whiteboards[1]. (In fact, I'll probably move much, if not all, of this into Launchpad anyway, in which case these emails will be a summary of all the blueprints. not all of us work with Linaro, but it is a useful method for tracking progress). 3) List of active engineers
[1] https://wiki.linaro.org/Process/Blueprints
Please read through and reply with comments/corrections. Feel free to add or remove tasks from the list I've given below.
Thanks, g.
1 - Latest news
- devicetree/arm on git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 has
everything needed to turn on basic device tree support for any platform.
- Similarly, u-boot just needs to have the CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT defined to
turn on device tree support.
- IRQ handling is still a problem and only one interrupt controller
can be supported at the moment, but Lennert is working on a solution.
- I've posted a patch that will allow dt and non-dt device
registration to co-exist peacefully by snooping platform device registrations. I could use some feedback and testing.
- hopefully the basic dt support can be merged into Nicolas' tree this
week if I get a cleaned up branch pushed out for him quickly.
2 - Task status
Core infrastructure: [glikely] basic infrastructure to enable dt: DONE [r-herring] Allow dtb to be located anywhere in RAM: DONE [bones] Debug dtb corruption during init: INPROGRESS [glikely] OF clock bindings: INPROGRESS
Does this include the common clock framework that Jeremy had been working on? I see no mention of that explicitly, hence the question.
Regards, Amit