[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: common location for devicetree files

On Nov 8, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:59:56AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Jason Cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 05:21:58PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>> As we start having more sharing of device trees between architectures
>>>> (arm & arm64, arm & powerpc, guessing maybe mips & arm) we need dts to
>>>> live in location that
>>>> I was wondering what people felt about doing:
>>>> arch/dts/<VENDOR>/
>>>> as a common location that could be shared. I'm up for other
>>>> suggestions.
>>> What do we really need to do before the move? Should all arch dts files
>>> be able to #include from any arch? What's the minimum churn needed to
>>> accomplish that? Maybe just move the needed bits to arch/dts/include/ ?
>>> I'm not real keen on separating by vendor. For example, us mvebu folks
>>> would probably miss useful/duplicated effort in another vendor's
>>> subdirectory. Which was the whole reason for moving driver code out of
>>> machine directories to begin with.
>> Can you explain that further, what would you miss from other vendors.
>> All the patches should still be going via devicetree ML.
> I was simply applying the same logic used to justify moving all of the
> driver code out of arch/arm/. Once that happened, a lot of patterns
> emerged and we have things like common clock now. Yet all of this code
> (originally under arch/arm) was submitted to the same ML.
> iow, there's a difference between being on the same high-traffic
> mailinglist where people are filtering out just what they need, and
> being in the same subdirectory, right next to three other
> implementations of the same code (I exaggerate, but the point remains).
> It's a lot easier to spot similar implementations when they are all
> congregated under one directory.
> How many boards are using the same PMIC across vendors? Would it make
> sense to have a tps6905.dtsi they could all include? Flash chips? I'm
> just asking.
> My gut is that having separate vendor directories would lead to
> balkanization. That might not be a problem, but it's worth considering.
> thx,
> Jason.

I get the point, just not sure how else to sort the 800+ .dts{i} files that we have in the kernel tree right now.

I think common patterns have to be looked at by various maintainers.

- k

Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-08 19:41    [W:0.046 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site