Re: [PATCH 3/3] MAINTAINERS: Refactor device tree maintainership

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 07/23/2013 10:14 AM, Pawel Moll wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 21:03 +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 07/22/2013 11:50 AM, Pawel Moll wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 04:19 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>> +F:	include/dt-bindings
>>>
>>> One thing we didn't finish talking about was the question if this
>>> directory is supposed to contain *.dtsi files as well? The obvious
>>> problem I have is a vexpress motherboard being (well, actually not bein
>>> right now) shared between arch/arm/boot/dts and arch/arm64/boot/dts.
>>
>> Please no. 
> 
> No as in: no don't put *.dtsi files into include/dt-bindings; or: no, do
> not duplicate the motherboard file?

Don't put *.dtsi into include/dt-bindings, I believe.

> It you meant the latter, this is exactly what I wanted to say: I don't
> want to do that, but there's no way of avoiding it right now.

I think the solution is to introduce some new shared/common location for
shared/common *.dtsi files, into the kernel tree, in the interim.

When *.dts move out of the kernel, this common location can simply be
consumed as part of the DT tree re-organization.

Or perhaps, we could move *.dts around in the kernel to match the
proposed DT tree structure before that point in time?

>> we will still need
>> to copy dt-bindings into the kernel. Also, I think we should move all
>> dts files out of arch subdirs and arrange by vendor or soc family. I'm
>> sure there are some cases that structure doesn't fit well, but there is
>> very little in a dts tied to a cpu architecture.
> 
> I couldn't agree more. So:
> 
> <root>/include/dt-bindings/vendor/*?

> <root>/dts/vendor/*?

I would tend to prefer that option, ...

> <root>/of/vendor/*?
> <root>/dt/vendor/*?

or perhaps that one.

> <root>/drivers/of/vendor/*?