Re: dtc: import latest upstream dtc

[David Gibson <david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 03:42:33PM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 1:16 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>> On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> That's probably a reasonable idea, although I imagined that people would
> >>> actually split out the portions of any header file they wanted to use
> >>> with dtc, so that any headers included by *.dts would only include
> >>> #defines. Those headers could be used by both dtc and other .h files (or
> >>> .c files).
> >>
> >> Used by what other files? kernel files? We ultimately want to split out
> >> dts files from the kernel, so whatever we add needs to be self
> >> contained. I don't see this as a huge issue though because the whole
> >> point of the DT data is to move that information out of the kernel. If
> >> it is needed in both places, then something is wrong.
> > 
> > People get very hung up on this idea of having the DT move device
> > information out of the kernel, but that was never really the
> > motivation behind it.  Or at least, not the only or foremost
> > motivation.
> > 
> > The DT provides a consistent, flexible way of describing device
> > information.  That allows the core runtime the kernel to operate the
> > same way, regardless of how the DT information was obtained.  The DT
> > could come from firmware, but it could also come from an intermediate
> > bootloader or from early kernel code.  All are perfectly acceptable
> > options depending on the constraints of the platform.
> > 
> > The idea of firmware supplying the DT is much touted, but while it's a
> > theoretically nice idea, I think it's frequently a bad idea for
> > practical reasons.  Those being, in essence that a) firmware usually
> > sucks, b) it's usually harder (or at least no easier) to replace
> > firmware with a fixed version than the kernel/bootwrapper and c)
> > firmware usually *really* sucks.
> 
> Gee, it sounds like you want firmware to suck.  Beating on the "firmware
> sucks" drum is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, discouraging talented
> programmers from doing firmware.  Who would want to work on something
> that "everyone knows sucks"?

At this point it's already fulfilled.  Unfortunately, it really
doesn't matter how many more nice firmwares appear, once you have to
support the shitty ones - which we already do - the damage is done.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson