From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Sharing *.dtsi between Linux architectures?
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:17:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51E06475.6010006@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51E05FEB.1090308@wwwdotorg.org>
On 07/12/2013 02:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Is there a (possibly just proposed) mechanism in place to allow *.dts
> from multiple Linux architectures to share common *.dtsi files?
Nothing proposed yet. There was some discussion at Connect (which I
missed part of). We're certainly going to start to have that issue
between arm and arm64 as well as probably FSL powerpc and arm.
I would like to move all dts files out of arch. I think we should think
about how we construct a separate dts repository and then move the
kernel structure in that direction (it's still believed there is too
much interdependency to have separate repo yet). I don't think cpu
architecture is the right top level structure for dts files. Probably
something by vendor and/or SOC family is more appropriate. Then you have
to figure out how to handle board vs. chip vendors.
> As an example, consider two SoCs that are identical except for the CPU
> complex. One uses an ARMv7 CPU (DTs in arch/arm/boot/dts/) and the other
> uses some ARMv8 CPU (DTs in arch/am64/boot/dts/). It'd be useful to
> define all the SoC components in some common .dtsi file to avoid
> duplication, and have both arch/arm/boot/dts/tegraXXX.dtsi and
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/tegraYYY.dtsi include that and add the relevant
> CPU-related nodes.
>
> I could imagine creating one of the following paths for this purpose:
>
> arch/common/dts/
> include/dt-common/
> include/dtsi/
>
> ... or perhaps re-using the existing:
>
> include/dt-bindings/
>
> ... although my original intent for that last location was just to house
> header files that define constants that are part of binding definitions,
> rather than actual structural content.
I think we should stick with defines there.
Rob
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rob Herring <robherring2-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>
Cc: devicetree-discuss
<devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org>,
ARM kernel mailing list
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Sharing *.dtsi between Linux architectures?
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:17:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51E06475.6010006@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51E05FEB.1090308-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>
On 07/12/2013 02:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Is there a (possibly just proposed) mechanism in place to allow *.dts
> from multiple Linux architectures to share common *.dtsi files?
Nothing proposed yet. There was some discussion at Connect (which I
missed part of). We're certainly going to start to have that issue
between arm and arm64 as well as probably FSL powerpc and arm.
I would like to move all dts files out of arch. I think we should think
about how we construct a separate dts repository and then move the
kernel structure in that direction (it's still believed there is too
much interdependency to have separate repo yet). I don't think cpu
architecture is the right top level structure for dts files. Probably
something by vendor and/or SOC family is more appropriate. Then you have
to figure out how to handle board vs. chip vendors.
> As an example, consider two SoCs that are identical except for the CPU
> complex. One uses an ARMv7 CPU (DTs in arch/arm/boot/dts/) and the other
> uses some ARMv8 CPU (DTs in arch/am64/boot/dts/). It'd be useful to
> define all the SoC components in some common .dtsi file to avoid
> duplication, and have both arch/arm/boot/dts/tegraXXX.dtsi and
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/tegraYYY.dtsi include that and add the relevant
> CPU-related nodes.
>
> I could imagine creating one of the following paths for this purpose:
>
> arch/common/dts/
> include/dt-common/
> include/dtsi/
>
> ... or perhaps re-using the existing:
>
> include/dt-bindings/
>
> ... although my original intent for that last location was just to house
> header files that define constants that are part of binding definitions,
> rather than actual structural content.
I think we should stick with defines there.
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-12 20:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-12 19:58 Sharing *.dtsi between Linux architectures? Stephen Warren
2013-07-12 19:58 ` Stephen Warren
2013-07-12 20:17 ` Rob Herring [this message]
2013-07-12 20:17 ` Rob Herring
2013-07-12 20:23 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-07-12 20:23 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2013-07-12 22:26 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-07-12 22:26 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51E06475.6010006@gmail.com \
--to=robherring2@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.