From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:14:38 -0400 Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] DT bindings as ABI [was: Do we have people interested in device tree janitoring / cleanup?] In-Reply-To: <20130725215315.GV7729@decadent.org.uk> References: <20130725193135.GT23879@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130725203228.GX23879@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130725215315.GV7729@decadent.org.uk> Message-ID: <20130726121438.GF29916@titan.lakedaemon.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:53:15PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 04:32:28PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > [...] > > One of the things I've been trying to square up in my head is how to > > retain the history of the binding when moving to the new tree. My > > current idea was to clone the kernel tree, add one patch deleting > > everything but the bindings and dts files, and one more patch moving > > things where we want them (arch/{powerpc,arm}/boot/dts -> dts). > > > > Then, as needed, we could merge a kernel version tag and delete > > everything we don't need (code) in the merge commit. > > > > The downside of this is it would be messy, the upside is that we could > > closely track the kernel tree (until the bindings and dts are moved > > out), and retain the history of the bindings and dts files. > [...] > > It's *extremely* messy, but 'git filter-branch' might help to make a > clean tracking branch preserving history of just DT files. David > Woodhouse did something like that for the linux-firmware repo > initially. ok, but once that is setup, asking patch submitters to keep binding doc and dts file changes in separate patches from code changes would allow us to put those patches in a separate branch, mergable into both trees. thx, Jason.