Re: Device Tree Evolution Project - call notes - 29th January

[Frank Rowand <frowand.list-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On 2/11/20 10:31 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:58 AM Mills, William <wmills-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Can TI get on the agenda for this week's meeting?
>>
>> We have a simple approach to make progress on boot loader applied overlays.
>> It is a small repo with just the overlays.
>> It builds the dtb's from the upstream kernel repo and the overlays from this repo.
>> We are going to do this at git.ti.com so we can make progress.
>> However we would like to suggest this as a simple way forward to collectively host things the kernel maintainers do not want in the kernel.
> 
> For the record, I'm in favor of hosting overlays in the kernel (of
> course I have opinions on the details). Frank is not in favor IIRC,
> but Frank is only maintainer of 'drivers/of/' so ultimately not his
> decision.

I agree that the kernel is the place to host overlay sources.

-Frank

> 
>> Does it make sense to host something like this in devicetree.org github account?
> 
> Yes, but I would like to see this coordinated with hosting
> 'devicetree-rebasing' there. We should be able to use the same
> makefiles from it. Perhaps the overlay repo should work as a git
> submodule of it as well. That would help keep things in sync.
> 
> A concern I have is what happens when someone wants to split some
> portions of an existing dts into an overlay? Then the base dts becomes
> incomplete. Users will have regressions from missing functionality if
> they don't know to apply some overlay. And how do we track what base
> DTs overlays apply to? Not that we have a solution when they are in
> one tree, but 2 trees makes that harder.
> 
> Rob
>