[OLPC-devel] Device tree

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 02:25:03PM -0400, Jim Gettys wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 07:40 -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> > [Changing name of thread...]
> > 
> > a) I think we need our own sub-architecture, sooner rather than later.  
> > I could give a bunch of reasons, but I suspect that they are obvious to 
> > everyone here, considering how little our hardware resembles a legacy PC.
> 
> True.  Marcelo, Dave, do you think this is a good route to go?  Will we
> get any push back do you think from LKML or People That Matter (TM).
> Certainly on ARM it is routine to get a sub-architecture; I don't know
> how this is seen in the x86 part of the community.

I don't see any need advantage of having a subarchitecture in the kernel
for OLPC (or Geode), given the configurable nature of the kernel, which
means that you can strip out unnecessary parts of code used by legacy
PC's.

Not enough arguments for the work such change would result in, IMHO.