Moving ARM dts files

Moving ARM dts files

[Rob Herring]

Olof, Arnd,

I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the 
makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which 
isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups 
by hand.

MAINTAINERS will also need updating.

A few questions:

Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a 
few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the 
list yet, but can.

Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire, 
etc. for TI for example.

What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup 
the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.


Sub-arch maintainers, 
'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory 
(the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.

Rob

8<-----------------------------------------------------------
#!/usr/bin/env python3

import os
import re
from git import Git
import glob

vendor_map = {
    'imx': 'fsl',
    'ls': 'fsl',
    'vf': 'fsl',
    'qcom': 'qcom',
    'am3' : 'ti',
    'am4' : 'ti',
    'am5' : 'ti',
    'da' : 'ti',
    'dm' : 'ti',
    'dra' : 'ti',
    'keystone' : 'ti',
    'omap' : 'ti',
    'nspire' : 'ti',
    'armada' : 'marvell',
    'berlin' : 'marvell',
    'dove' : 'marvell',
    'kirkwood' : 'marvell',
    'orion' : 'marvell',
    'pxa' : 'marvell',
    'mvebu' : 'marvell',
    'mmp2' : 'marvell',
    'arm-' : 'arm',
    'integ' : 'arm',
    've' : 'arm',
    'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
    'at91' : 'atmel',
    'sama' : 'atmel',
    'bcm' : 'brcm',
    'exynos' : 'samsung',
    's3c' : 'samsung',
    's5p' : 'samsung',
    'gemini' : 'cortina',
    'hi3' : 'hisilicon',
    'hip' : 'hisilicon',
    'hisi' : 'hisilicon',
    'mt' : 'mediatek',
    'meson' : 'amlogic',
    'owl' : 'actions',
    'r7' : 'renesas',
    'r8' : 'renesas',
    'r9' : 'renesas',
    'rk' : 'rockchip',
    'socfpga' : 'altera',
    'st' : 'st',
    'spear' : 'st',
    'sun' : 'allwinner',
    'tegra' : 'nvidia',
    'zynq' : 'xilinx',
    'wm' : 'wm',
    'uniph' : 'socionext',
    'zx' : 'zte',
}

if __name__ == "__main__":
    g = Git('.')

    g.checkout("HEAD", "arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile")
    dts_make = open("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile", "r").read()

    # make entries 1 line
    make2 = re.sub(r'\\\n', '', dts_make)

    for k,v in vendor_map.items():
        for f in glob.iglob("arch/arm/boot/dts/" + k + "*.*"):
            new_dir = "arch/arm/boot/dts/" + v + "/"
            base = os.path.splitext(os.path.basename(f))[0]

            os.makedirs(new_dir, exist_ok=True)
            g.mv(f, new_dir)

            # Remove the file from the makefile
            dts_make = re.sub('.*' + base + r'\.dtb.*\\\n', '', dts_make)
            dts_make = re.sub('.*' + base + r'\.dtb', '', dts_make)

            # extract the matching makefile entry
            reg = re.search(r'.*' + base + r'.*', make2)
            if not reg:
                continue

            entry = reg.group(0)
            make2 = re.sub(r'.*' + base + r'.*', '', make2)
            if entry:
                makefile = open(new_dir + 'Makefile', 'a+')
                print(entry, file=makefile)
                makefile.close()


    for d in sorted(glob.iglob("arch/arm/boot/dts/*/")):
        dts_make += 'subdir-y += ' + d.split(os.path.sep)[-2] + '\n'

        # Add license and sort entries of sub-dir makefile
        vendor_make = '# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0\n'
        make_lines = open(d + 'Makefile', 'r').readlines()
        for l in sorted(make_lines):
            vendor_make += l

        vendor_make = re.sub(r'\t', r'\\\n\t', vendor_make)

        f = open(d + 'Makefile', 'w')
        f.write(vendor_make)
        f.close()
        g.add(d + 'Makefile')

    # Remove entries with no dtbs left
    dts_make = re.sub(r'.*\+= \\\n\n', '', dts_make)

    open("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile", "w").write(dts_make)
    g.add("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile")

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Alexandre Belloni]

Hello Rob,

On 04/12/2018 12:36:49-0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> Olof, Arnd,
> 
> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the 
> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which 
> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups 
> by hand.
> 
> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a 
> few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the 
> list yet, but can.
> 
> Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire, 
> etc. for TI for example.
> 
> What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup 
> the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
> 
> 
> Sub-arch maintainers, 
> 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory 
> (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.
> 
> Rob
> 
> 8<-----------------------------------------------------------
> #!/usr/bin/env python3
> 
> import os
> import re
> from git import Git
> import glob
> 
> vendor_map = {
>     'imx': 'fsl',
>     'ls': 'fsl',
>     'vf': 'fsl',
>     'qcom': 'qcom',
>     'am3' : 'ti',
>     'am4' : 'ti',
>     'am5' : 'ti',
>     'da' : 'ti',
>     'dm' : 'ti',
>     'dra' : 'ti',
>     'keystone' : 'ti',
>     'omap' : 'ti',
>     'nspire' : 'ti',
>     'armada' : 'marvell',
>     'berlin' : 'marvell',
>     'dove' : 'marvell',
>     'kirkwood' : 'marvell',
>     'orion' : 'marvell',
>     'pxa' : 'marvell',
>     'mvebu' : 'marvell',
>     'mmp2' : 'marvell',
>     'arm-' : 'arm',
>     'integ' : 'arm',
>     've' : 'arm',
>     'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
>     'at91' : 'atmel',
>     'sama' : 'atmel',

Unfortunately, we have many boards without a proper prefix. Wouldn't it
be better to use arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile and map dtb-$(CONFIG_*) to a
vendor directory?

This way you would be sure to not miss any. This would also ease the
creation of subdirs if we decide to do that.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:47 PM Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> On 04/12/2018 12:36:49-0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Olof, Arnd,
> >
> > I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> > makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> > isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> > by hand.
> >
> > MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> >
> > A few questions:
> >
> > Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a
> > few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the
> > list yet, but can.
> >
> > Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire,
> > etc. for TI for example.
> >
> > What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup
> > the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
> >
> >
> > Sub-arch maintainers,
> > 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory
> > (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > 8<-----------------------------------------------------------
> > #!/usr/bin/env python3
> >
> > import os
> > import re
> > from git import Git
> > import glob
> >
> > vendor_map = {
> >     'imx': 'fsl',
> >     'ls': 'fsl',
> >     'vf': 'fsl',
> >     'qcom': 'qcom',
> >     'am3' : 'ti',
> >     'am4' : 'ti',
> >     'am5' : 'ti',
> >     'da' : 'ti',
> >     'dm' : 'ti',
> >     'dra' : 'ti',
> >     'keystone' : 'ti',
> >     'omap' : 'ti',
> >     'nspire' : 'ti',
> >     'armada' : 'marvell',
> >     'berlin' : 'marvell',
> >     'dove' : 'marvell',
> >     'kirkwood' : 'marvell',
> >     'orion' : 'marvell',
> >     'pxa' : 'marvell',
> >     'mvebu' : 'marvell',
> >     'mmp2' : 'marvell',
> >     'arm-' : 'arm',
> >     'integ' : 'arm',
> >     've' : 'arm',
> >     'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
> >     'at91' : 'atmel',
> >     'sama' : 'atmel',
>
> Unfortunately, we have many boards without a proper prefix. Wouldn't it
> be better to use arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile and map dtb-$(CONFIG_*) to a
> vendor directory?

Only 13 boards by my count Atmel. And 2 boards each for omap3 and
Renesas. That's manageable to do by hand or just add to the map.

Though in hindsight I probably would have used the config.

> This way you would be sure to not miss any. This would also ease the
> creation of subdirs if we decide to do that.

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Simon Horman]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 12:36:49PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> Olof, Arnd,
> 
> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the 
> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which 
> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups 
> by hand.
> 
> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a 
> few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the 
> list yet, but can.
> 
> Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire, 
> etc. for TI for example.
> 
> What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup 
> the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
> 
> 
> Sub-arch maintainers, 
> 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory 
> (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.
> 
> Rob
> 
> 8<-----------------------------------------------------------
> #!/usr/bin/env python3
> 
> import os
> import re
> from git import Git
> import glob
> 
> vendor_map = {
>     'imx': 'fsl',
>     'ls': 'fsl',
>     'vf': 'fsl',
>     'qcom': 'qcom',
>     'am3' : 'ti',
>     'am4' : 'ti',
>     'am5' : 'ti',
>     'da' : 'ti',
>     'dm' : 'ti',
>     'dra' : 'ti',
>     'keystone' : 'ti',
>     'omap' : 'ti',
>     'nspire' : 'ti',
>     'armada' : 'marvell',
>     'berlin' : 'marvell',
>     'dove' : 'marvell',
>     'kirkwood' : 'marvell',
>     'orion' : 'marvell',
>     'pxa' : 'marvell',
>     'mvebu' : 'marvell',
>     'mmp2' : 'marvell',
>     'arm-' : 'arm',
>     'integ' : 'arm',
>     've' : 'arm',
>     'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
>     'at91' : 'atmel',
>     'sama' : 'atmel',
>     'bcm' : 'brcm',
>     'exynos' : 'samsung',
>     's3c' : 'samsung',
>     's5p' : 'samsung',
>     'gemini' : 'cortina',
>     'hi3' : 'hisilicon',
>     'hip' : 'hisilicon',
>     'hisi' : 'hisilicon',
>     'mt' : 'mediatek',
>     'meson' : 'amlogic',
>     'owl' : 'actions',
>     'r7' : 'renesas',
>     'r8' : 'renesas',
>     'r9' : 'renesas',

The above 'r' prefixes could be a bit longer if desired.

e.g.:
      'r7s'
      'r8a'
      'r9a'

>     'rk' : 'rockchip',
>     'socfpga' : 'altera',
>     'st' : 'st',
>     'spear' : 'st',
>     'sun' : 'allwinner',
>     'tegra' : 'nvidia',
>     'zynq' : 'xilinx',
>     'wm' : 'wm',
>     'uniph' : 'socionext',
>     'zx' : 'zte',

For renesas I believe you also want:

	'emev2'
	'gr-peach'
	'iwg20d-q7'
	'sh'


> }
> 
> if __name__ == "__main__":
>     g = Git('.')
> 
>     g.checkout("HEAD", "arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile")
>     dts_make = open("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile", "r").read()
> 
>     # make entries 1 line
>     make2 = re.sub(r'\\\n', '', dts_make)
> 
>     for k,v in vendor_map.items():
>         for f in glob.iglob("arch/arm/boot/dts/" + k + "*.*"):
>             new_dir = "arch/arm/boot/dts/" + v + "/"
>             base = os.path.splitext(os.path.basename(f))[0]
> 
>             os.makedirs(new_dir, exist_ok=True)
>             g.mv(f, new_dir)
> 
>             # Remove the file from the makefile
>             dts_make = re.sub('.*' + base + r'\.dtb.*\\\n', '', dts_make)
>             dts_make = re.sub('.*' + base + r'\.dtb', '', dts_make)
> 
>             # extract the matching makefile entry
>             reg = re.search(r'.*' + base + r'.*', make2)
>             if not reg:
>                 continue
> 
>             entry = reg.group(0)
>             make2 = re.sub(r'.*' + base + r'.*', '', make2)
>             if entry:
>                 makefile = open(new_dir + 'Makefile', 'a+')
>                 print(entry, file=makefile)
>                 makefile.close()
> 
> 
>     for d in sorted(glob.iglob("arch/arm/boot/dts/*/")):
>         dts_make += 'subdir-y += ' + d.split(os.path.sep)[-2] + '\n'
> 
>         # Add license and sort entries of sub-dir makefile
>         vendor_make = '# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0\n'
>         make_lines = open(d + 'Makefile', 'r').readlines()
>         for l in sorted(make_lines):
>             vendor_make += l
> 
>         vendor_make = re.sub(r'\t', r'\\\n\t', vendor_make)
> 
>         f = open(d + 'Makefile', 'w')
>         f.write(vendor_make)
>         f.close()
>         g.add(d + 'Makefile')
> 
>     # Remove entries with no dtbs left
>     dts_make = re.sub(r'.*\+= \\\n\n', '', dts_make)
> 
>     open("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile", "w").write(dts_make)
>     g.add("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile")
> 

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Andreas Färber]

Rob,

Am 04.12.18 um 19:36 schrieb Rob Herring:
> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the 
> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which 
> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups 
> by hand.
> 
> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs?

This refactoring is a terrible idea!

While it would've been nice to have more structure from the start,
bootloaders like U-Boot expect a flat structure for arm .dtb files now.
If you start installing them into subdirs instead, they won't find the
files anymore under the hardcoded name.

Doing this only for new platforms would be much less invasive and allow
to prepare bootloaders accordingly. Alternatively, white-list which ones
are safe to move around. But don't just script a refactoring because it
looks nicer in the source tree, without testing what side effects this
can have for board/distro users of the compiled files in practice.
We already had that discussion for arm64 because Debian chose to ignore
the kernel-installed subdirectories and installed .dtb files into a flat
directory, which collided with openSUSE sticking to the kernel choice.

This topic becomes even more important with EBBR: There is neither a
mechanism in place to sync .dts files into U-Boot or EDK2 source trees,
nor are capsule updates implemented in U-Boot for easily deploying such
bootloaders with new .dts sources or paths yet. And I can assure you
that just getting users to dd the right bootloader can be difficult...
Since DT forward and backward compatibility is often being neglected,
for example with optional properties or renamed compatibles that break
booting with previous drivers, new kernel versions often need updated
Device Trees to make use of new/enhanced drivers. Therefore it is
unfortunately often enough a necessity to load newer kernel-based .dtb
files matching the kernel (as opposed to the dream of kernel-independent
hardware descriptions) when working with the latest -rc or -next kernels
at least. For examples of DTs needing updates, look no further than
Linaro's 96boards - in case of hikey960/EDK2 GRUB is another layer where
.dtb paths may be hardcoded, ditto for arm; and Armada was an example
where the upstream bindings for the network IP changed incompatibly.

DT overlays are another topic that is not making any progress upstream
according to the ELCE BoF, so beyond the Raspberry Pi the only known
working way to apply them is to write a U-Boot boot.scr script, which
can either reuse $fdtcontroladdr DT or use the filename $fdtfile or
hardcode one, the latter two of which would break with your renaming.

So expect people to be using .dtb files, expect them to be affected by
file movements to subdirectories here, and don't expect each user to
understand or be able to fix things themselves if they fall apart as
result of your changes and they suddenly no longer have Ethernet/Wifi.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Rob,
>
> Am 04.12.18 um 19:36 schrieb Rob Herring:
> > I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> > makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> > isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> > by hand.
> >
> > MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> >
> > A few questions:
> >
> > Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs?
>
> This refactoring is a terrible idea!

How do you really feel?

> While it would've been nice to have more structure from the start,
> bootloaders like U-Boot expect a flat structure for arm .dtb files now.
> If you start installing them into subdirs instead, they won't find the
> files anymore under the hardcoded name.
>
> Doing this only for new platforms would be much less invasive and allow
> to prepare bootloaders accordingly.

That was my suggestion where this started for the new RDA platform.
Olof preferred to move everything and that's my desire too.

> Alternatively, white-list which ones
> are safe to move around.

I'd prefer to know which ones the distros don't want moved. That
should be easier to figure out. We also need that anyways in context
of what platforms we care about compatibility.

Another option is dtbs_install target could flatten the installed
dtbs. That is the only part the distros should depend on.

> But don't just script a refactoring because it
> looks nicer in the source tree, without testing what side effects this
> can have for board/distro users of the compiled files in practice.
> We already had that discussion for arm64 because Debian chose to ignore
> the kernel-installed subdirectories and installed .dtb files into a flat
> directory, which collided with openSUSE sticking to the kernel choice.

So everyone already deals with subdirs or not with arm and arm64
already, seems like they can deal with this. I will raise the topic on
the cross-distro list though.

> This topic becomes even more important with EBBR: There is neither a
> mechanism in place to sync .dts files into U-Boot or EDK2 source trees,
> nor are capsule updates implemented in U-Boot for easily deploying such
> bootloaders with new .dts sources or paths yet.

EBBR actually says firmware (including dtbs) goes in directories named
by vendor.

> And I can assure you
> that just getting users to dd the right bootloader can be difficult...
> Since DT forward and backward compatibility is often being neglected,
> for example with optional properties or renamed compatibles that break
> booting with previous drivers, new kernel versions often need updated
> Device Trees to make use of new/enhanced drivers. Therefore it is
> unfortunately often enough a necessity to load newer kernel-based .dtb
> files matching the kernel (as opposed to the dream of kernel-independent
> hardware descriptions) when working with the latest -rc or -next kernels
> at least. For examples of DTs needing updates, look no further than
> Linaro's 96boards - in case of hikey960/EDK2 GRUB is another layer where
> .dtb paths may be hardcoded, ditto for arm; and Armada was an example
> where the upstream bindings for the network IP changed incompatibly.

Compatibility is an issue, yes, but that really has nothing to do with this.

> DT overlays are another topic that is not making any progress upstream
> according to the ELCE BoF, so beyond the Raspberry Pi the only known
> working way to apply them is to write a U-Boot boot.scr script, which
> can either reuse $fdtcontroladdr DT or use the filename $fdtfile or
> hardcode one, the latter two of which would break with your renaming.

DT overlays also have nothing to do with this as there aren't any in
the kernel. I'm not inclined to take any either with a flat tree.
We're already at 1800+ files.

Rob
_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3061 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:17:15PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > Rob,
> >
> > Am 04.12.18 um 19:36 schrieb Rob Herring:
> > > I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> > > makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> > > isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> > > by hand.
> > >
> > > MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> > >
> > > A few questions:
> > >
> > > Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs?
> >
> > This refactoring is a terrible idea!
> 
> How do you really feel?
> 
> > While it would've been nice to have more structure from the start,
> > bootloaders like U-Boot expect a flat structure for arm .dtb files now.
> > If you start installing them into subdirs instead, they won't find the
> > files anymore under the hardcoded name.
> >
> > Doing this only for new platforms would be much less invasive and allow
> > to prepare bootloaders accordingly.
> 
> That was my suggestion where this started for the new RDA platform.
> Olof preferred to move everything and that's my desire too.

I think we might really be stuck with "new stuff only in subdirs".
There's a whole huge world out there that depends on these layouts and
it's almost but not quite like the API vs ABI thing.  You can change the
kernel API at whim but this is something with a lot of external users,
and those folks aren't supposed to get broken.

> > Alternatively, white-list which ones
> > are safe to move around.
> 
> I'd prefer to know which ones the distros don't want moved. That
> should be easier to figure out. We also need that anyways in context
> of what platforms we care about compatibility.
> 
> Another option is dtbs_install target could flatten the installed
> dtbs. That is the only part the distros should depend on.

But it's not just "the distros" that'll get bit by this too.  Or rather,
it's the "big distros" and all the OpenEmbedded/buildroot/etc ones too
that follow off the built-in logic to find the DTB that'll get bit too
with a rename.

[snip]
> > DT overlays are another topic that is not making any progress upstream
> > according to the ELCE BoF, so beyond the Raspberry Pi the only known
> > working way to apply them is to write a U-Boot boot.scr script, which
> > can either reuse $fdtcontroladdr DT or use the filename $fdtfile or
> > hardcode one, the latter two of which would break with your renaming.
> 
> DT overlays also have nothing to do with this as there aren't any in
> the kernel. I'm not inclined to take any either with a flat tree.
> We're already at 1800+ files.

I'm going to do my best to not hijack the thread to be about overlays
but that's a whole chicken and egg type problem too.  But yes, it's not
exactly related to moving or not existing dts/dtb files but something
about where / how those are to be stored and maintained really does need
to be done.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Andreas Färber]

Am 05.12.18 um 05:17 schrieb Rob Herring:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>> Rob,
>>
>> Am 04.12.18 um 19:36 schrieb Rob Herring:
>>> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
>>> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
>>> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
>>> by hand.
>>>
>>> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
>>>
>>> A few questions:
>>>
>>> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs?
>>
>> This refactoring is a terrible idea!
> 
> How do you really feel?
> 
>> While it would've been nice to have more structure from the start,
>> bootloaders like U-Boot expect a flat structure for arm .dtb files now.
>> If you start installing them into subdirs instead, they won't find the
>> files anymore under the hardcoded name.
>>
>> Doing this only for new platforms would be much less invasive and allow
>> to prepare bootloaders accordingly.
> 
> That was my suggestion where this started for the new RDA platform.
> Olof preferred to move everything and that's my desire too.
> 
>> Alternatively, white-list which ones
>> are safe to move around.
> 
> I'd prefer to know which ones the distros don't want moved. That
> should be easier to figure out. We also need that anyways in context
> of what platforms we care about compatibility.
> 
> Another option is dtbs_install target could flatten the installed
> dtbs. That is the only part the distros should depend on.

I'd be okay with distinguishing source vs. install location. Due to the
issue I mention below (and more) we can't use install_dtbs for openSUSE
and had to reimplement it, which we'd need to (and can) adjust.

>> But don't just script a refactoring because it
>> looks nicer in the source tree, without testing what side effects this
>> can have for board/distro users of the compiled files in practice.
>> We already had that discussion for arm64 because Debian chose to ignore
>> the kernel-installed subdirectories and installed .dtb files into a flat
>> directory, which collided with openSUSE sticking to the kernel choice.
> 
> So everyone already deals with subdirs or not with arm and arm64
> already, seems like they can deal with this. I will raise the topic on
> the cross-distro list though.

Sounds like you're twisting words... The keyword was "hardcoded" paths -
one way or another (not "and") depending on the kernel choices being
flat for arm, vendor subdir for arm64.

>> This topic becomes even more important with EBBR: There is neither a
>> mechanism in place to sync .dts files into U-Boot or EDK2 source trees,
>> nor are capsule updates implemented in U-Boot for easily deploying such
>> bootloaders with new .dts sources or paths yet.
> 
> EBBR actually says firmware (including dtbs) goes in directories named
> by vendor.

Fine, but unrelated.

>> And I can assure you
>> that just getting users to dd the right bootloader can be difficult...
>> Since DT forward and backward compatibility is often being neglected,
>> for example with optional properties or renamed compatibles that break
>> booting with previous drivers, new kernel versions often need updated
>> Device Trees to make use of new/enhanced drivers. Therefore it is
>> unfortunately often enough a necessity to load newer kernel-based .dtb
>> files matching the kernel (as opposed to the dream of kernel-independent
>> hardware descriptions) when working with the latest -rc or -next kernels
>> at least. For examples of DTs needing updates, look no further than
>> Linaro's 96boards - in case of hikey960/EDK2 GRUB is another layer where
>> .dtb paths may be hardcoded, ditto for arm; and Armada was an example
>> where the upstream bindings for the network IP changed incompatibly.
> 
> Compatibility is an issue, yes, but that really has nothing to do with this.
> 
>> DT overlays are another topic that is not making any progress upstream
>> according to the ELCE BoF, so beyond the Raspberry Pi the only known
>> working way to apply them is to write a U-Boot boot.scr script, which
>> can either reuse $fdtcontroladdr DT or use the filename $fdtfile or
>> hardcode one, the latter two of which would break with your renaming.
> 
> DT overlays also have nothing to do with this as there aren't any in
> the kernel. I'm not inclined to take any either with a flat tree.
> We're already at 1800+ files.

Read again: a) Breaking DT changes and b) the desire to use Overlays
instead of replacing the bootloaders for each change are _reasons_ why
people depend on .dtb filenames from the kernel source tree for their
boot flow today. Nothing to do with downstream .dtbo files.

For example, remember when I reported that the kernel didn't compile DTs
with -@? No reaction except for Frank asking to be CC'ed - was it ever
fixed??? Do EDK2's or U-Boot's built-in DTs compile with -@ today?
Raspberry Pi overlays in U-Boot work because it switched to passing the
DT through from the proprietary firmware.
Point being that while it would be nice to get a current, compatible DT
via UEFI tables and ignore .dtb filenames outside of a few bootloaders,
in reality we're not quite there yet for all platforms.

I see no problem (except for naming choices) moving new targets like RDA
to subfolders because we can then hardcode it the new way; I also assume
deeply embedded targets like stm32f4 or targets with no mainline
bootloaders yet like owl-s500 could be refactored.
I do see problems refactoring widely used SBC targets like sunXi though.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:32 AM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Am 05.12.18 um 05:17 schrieb Rob Herring:
> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Rob,
> >>
> >> Am 04.12.18 um 19:36 schrieb Rob Herring:
> >>> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> >>> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> >>> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> >>> by hand.
> >>>
> >>> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> >>>
> >>> A few questions:
> >>>
> >>> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs?
> >>
> >> This refactoring is a terrible idea!
> >
> > How do you really feel?
> >
> >> While it would've been nice to have more structure from the start,
> >> bootloaders like U-Boot expect a flat structure for arm .dtb files now.
> >> If you start installing them into subdirs instead, they won't find the
> >> files anymore under the hardcoded name.
> >>
> >> Doing this only for new platforms would be much less invasive and allow
> >> to prepare bootloaders accordingly.
> >
> > That was my suggestion where this started for the new RDA platform.
> > Olof preferred to move everything and that's my desire too.
> >
> >> Alternatively, white-list which ones
> >> are safe to move around.
> >
> > I'd prefer to know which ones the distros don't want moved. That
> > should be easier to figure out. We also need that anyways in context
> > of what platforms we care about compatibility.
> >
> > Another option is dtbs_install target could flatten the installed
> > dtbs. That is the only part the distros should depend on.
>
> I'd be okay with distinguishing source vs. install location. Due to the
> issue I mention below (and more) we can't use install_dtbs for openSUSE
> and had to reimplement it, which we'd need to (and can) adjust.

What would be needed for dtbs_install to work? arm64 needs to support
a flat install? If it doesn't work for Debian or openSUSE, I'm not
sure why we have it. So I'd like to make it work.

> >> But don't just script a refactoring because it
> >> looks nicer in the source tree, without testing what side effects this
> >> can have for board/distro users of the compiled files in practice.
> >> We already had that discussion for arm64 because Debian chose to ignore
> >> the kernel-installed subdirectories and installed .dtb files into a flat
> >> directory, which collided with openSUSE sticking to the kernel choice.
> >
> > So everyone already deals with subdirs or not with arm and arm64
> > already, seems like they can deal with this. I will raise the topic on
> > the cross-distro list though.
>
> Sounds like you're twisting words... The keyword was "hardcoded" paths -
> one way or another (not "and") depending on the kernel choices being
> flat for arm, vendor subdir for arm64.
>
> >> This topic becomes even more important with EBBR: There is neither a
> >> mechanism in place to sync .dts files into U-Boot or EDK2 source trees,
> >> nor are capsule updates implemented in U-Boot for easily deploying such
> >> bootloaders with new .dts sources or paths yet.
> >
> > EBBR actually says firmware (including dtbs) goes in directories named
> > by vendor.
>
> Fine, but unrelated.

If the distros want dtbs in a flat dir and EBBR says otherwise, then
it is related.

> >> And I can assure you
> >> that just getting users to dd the right bootloader can be difficult...
> >> Since DT forward and backward compatibility is often being neglected,
> >> for example with optional properties or renamed compatibles that break
> >> booting with previous drivers, new kernel versions often need updated
> >> Device Trees to make use of new/enhanced drivers. Therefore it is
> >> unfortunately often enough a necessity to load newer kernel-based .dtb
> >> files matching the kernel (as opposed to the dream of kernel-independent
> >> hardware descriptions) when working with the latest -rc or -next kernels
> >> at least. For examples of DTs needing updates, look no further than
> >> Linaro's 96boards - in case of hikey960/EDK2 GRUB is another layer where
> >> .dtb paths may be hardcoded, ditto for arm; and Armada was an example
> >> where the upstream bindings for the network IP changed incompatibly.
> >
> > Compatibility is an issue, yes, but that really has nothing to do with this.
> >
> >> DT overlays are another topic that is not making any progress upstream
> >> according to the ELCE BoF, so beyond the Raspberry Pi the only known
> >> working way to apply them is to write a U-Boot boot.scr script, which
> >> can either reuse $fdtcontroladdr DT or use the filename $fdtfile or
> >> hardcode one, the latter two of which would break with your renaming.
> >
> > DT overlays also have nothing to do with this as there aren't any in
> > the kernel. I'm not inclined to take any either with a flat tree.
> > We're already at 1800+ files.
>
> Read again: a) Breaking DT changes and b) the desire to use Overlays
> instead of replacing the bootloaders for each change are _reasons_ why
> people depend on .dtb filenames from the kernel source tree for their
> boot flow today. Nothing to do with downstream .dtbo files.
>
> For example, remember when I reported that the kernel didn't compile DTs
> with -@? No reaction except for Frank asking to be CC'ed - was it ever
> fixed??? Do EDK2's or U-Boot's built-in DTs compile with -@ today?

IIRC, Frank objected to changing this globally because it will bloat
all dtbs. And then no one did the work to make it a per dtb option.
Maybe that was the same issue in another thread.

> Raspberry Pi overlays in U-Boot work because it switched to passing the
> DT through from the proprietary firmware.
> Point being that while it would be nice to get a current, compatible DT
> via UEFI tables and ignore .dtb filenames outside of a few bootloaders,
> in reality we're not quite there yet for all platforms.
>
> I see no problem (except for naming choices) moving new targets like RDA
> to subfolders because we can then hardcode it the new way; I also assume
> deeply embedded targets like stm32f4 or targets with no mainline
> bootloaders yet like owl-s500 could be refactored.
> I do see problems refactoring widely used SBC targets like sunXi though.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
> HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1279 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:06:43PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:32 AM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:

> > I'd be okay with distinguishing source vs. install location. Due to the
> > issue I mention below (and more) we can't use install_dtbs for openSUSE
> > and had to reimplement it, which we'd need to (and can) adjust.

> What would be needed for dtbs_install to work? arm64 needs to support
> a flat install? If it doesn't work for Debian or openSUSE, I'm not
> sure why we have it. So I'd like to make it work.

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as the flat vs directory thing goes
isn't the issue that this winds up being a rename for an existing 32 bit
system?  If you just install the dtbs in the default location then a
bootloader or whatever that is hard coded to look for foo-bar.dtb won't
see the new foo/foo-bar.dtb (or whatever) and will continue to use the
old binary.  It's not the fact that that it's in a directory, it's the
fact that the bootloader sees the name it needs to look for change (if
it's looking on a filesystem at all).  This isn't a problem for arm64 as
the location isn't changing, it's used directories from day one.

The issues with the existing install_dtbs sounded unrelated to this.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:06:43PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:32 AM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > > I'd be okay with distinguishing source vs. install location. Due to the
> > > issue I mention below (and more) we can't use install_dtbs for openSUSE
> > > and had to reimplement it, which we'd need to (and can) adjust.
>
> > What would be needed for dtbs_install to work? arm64 needs to support
> > a flat install? If it doesn't work for Debian or openSUSE, I'm not
> > sure why we have it. So I'd like to make it work.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as the flat vs directory thing goes
> isn't the issue that this winds up being a rename for an existing 32 bit
> system?  If you just install the dtbs in the default location then a
> bootloader or whatever that is hard coded to look for foo-bar.dtb won't
> see the new foo/foo-bar.dtb (or whatever) and will continue to use the
> old binary.  It's not the fact that that it's in a directory, it's the
> fact that the bootloader sees the name it needs to look for change (if
> it's looking on a filesystem at all).  This isn't a problem for arm64 as
> the location isn't changing, it's used directories from day one.

Yeah, install needs to remain flat even if the dts files move into
subdirectories. It will be painful for everybody if the install
location moves.

> The issues with the existing install_dtbs sounded unrelated to this.

Agreed.


-Olof
_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:07 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:06:43PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:32 AM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > > I'd be okay with distinguishing source vs. install location. Due to the
> > > issue I mention below (and more) we can't use install_dtbs for openSUSE
> > > and had to reimplement it, which we'd need to (and can) adjust.
>
> > What would be needed for dtbs_install to work? arm64 needs to support
> > a flat install? If it doesn't work for Debian or openSUSE, I'm not
> > sure why we have it. So I'd like to make it work.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as the flat vs directory thing goes
> isn't the issue that this winds up being a rename for an existing 32 bit
> system?  If you just install the dtbs in the default location then a
> bootloader or whatever that is hard coded to look for foo-bar.dtb won't
> see the new foo/foo-bar.dtb (or whatever) and will continue to use the
> old binary.  It's not the fact that that it's in a directory, it's the
> fact that the bootloader sees the name it needs to look for change (if
> it's looking on a filesystem at all).

Correct.

> This isn't a problem for arm64 as
> the location isn't changing, it's used directories from day one.

The kernel may have used directories, but that's not what the distros
did according to Andreas:

> We already had that discussion for arm64 because Debian chose to ignore
> the kernel-installed subdirectories and installed .dtb files into a flat
> directory, which collided with openSUSE sticking to the kernel choice.

So are the distros different or who changed to align? That's not clear
from this thread.

> The issues with the existing install_dtbs sounded unrelated to this.

Maybe, what are the issues? We can't change the source layout
transparently if dtbs_install is not being used.

My question here is whether a flat install is useful on arm64. We can
either have a kconfig variable that arm32 sets to do flat installs or
it could be some command line make variable and then any user can pick
what they want for any arch.

Rob

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 395 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 08:57:06AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:07 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > The issues with the existing install_dtbs sounded unrelated to this.

> Maybe, what are the issues? We can't change the source layout
> transparently if dtbs_install is not being used.

I thought that was the thing with adding -@ so overlays could be used?

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 9:16 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 08:57:06AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:07 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > The issues with the existing install_dtbs sounded unrelated to this.
>
> > Maybe, what are the issues? We can't change the source layout
> > transparently if dtbs_install is not being used.
>
> I thought that was the thing with adding -@ so overlays could be used?

I don't think so as that is during building, not install. Any user can
set '-@' with 'make DTC_FLAGS="-@" ...' already. The issue with that
was changing the default globally and no way to set per platform. Now
that I think about, moving the sources to subdirs may allow setting
DTC_FLAGS per subdir which may be good enough.

Rob
_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6547 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:06:43PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:32 AM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > Am 05.12.18 um 05:17 schrieb Rob Herring:
> > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Rob,
> > >>
> > >> Am 04.12.18 um 19:36 schrieb Rob Herring:
> > >>> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> > >>> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> > >>> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> > >>> by hand.
> > >>>
> > >>> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> > >>>
> > >>> A few questions:
> > >>>
> > >>> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs?
> > >>
> > >> This refactoring is a terrible idea!
> > >
> > > How do you really feel?
> > >
> > >> While it would've been nice to have more structure from the start,
> > >> bootloaders like U-Boot expect a flat structure for arm .dtb files now.
> > >> If you start installing them into subdirs instead, they won't find the
> > >> files anymore under the hardcoded name.
> > >>
> > >> Doing this only for new platforms would be much less invasive and allow
> > >> to prepare bootloaders accordingly.
> > >
> > > That was my suggestion where this started for the new RDA platform.
> > > Olof preferred to move everything and that's my desire too.
> > >
> > >> Alternatively, white-list which ones
> > >> are safe to move around.
> > >
> > > I'd prefer to know which ones the distros don't want moved. That
> > > should be easier to figure out. We also need that anyways in context
> > > of what platforms we care about compatibility.
> > >
> > > Another option is dtbs_install target could flatten the installed
> > > dtbs. That is the only part the distros should depend on.
> >
> > I'd be okay with distinguishing source vs. install location. Due to the
> > issue I mention below (and more) we can't use install_dtbs for openSUSE
> > and had to reimplement it, which we'd need to (and can) adjust.
> 
> What would be needed for dtbs_install to work? arm64 needs to support
> a flat install? If it doesn't work for Debian or openSUSE, I'm not
> sure why we have it. So I'd like to make it work.
> 
> > >> But don't just script a refactoring because it
> > >> looks nicer in the source tree, without testing what side effects this
> > >> can have for board/distro users of the compiled files in practice.
> > >> We already had that discussion for arm64 because Debian chose to ignore
> > >> the kernel-installed subdirectories and installed .dtb files into a flat
> > >> directory, which collided with openSUSE sticking to the kernel choice.
> > >
> > > So everyone already deals with subdirs or not with arm and arm64
> > > already, seems like they can deal with this. I will raise the topic on
> > > the cross-distro list though.
> >
> > Sounds like you're twisting words... The keyword was "hardcoded" paths -
> > one way or another (not "and") depending on the kernel choices being
> > flat for arm, vendor subdir for arm64.
> >
> > >> This topic becomes even more important with EBBR: There is neither a
> > >> mechanism in place to sync .dts files into U-Boot or EDK2 source trees,
> > >> nor are capsule updates implemented in U-Boot for easily deploying such
> > >> bootloaders with new .dts sources or paths yet.
> > >
> > > EBBR actually says firmware (including dtbs) goes in directories named
> > > by vendor.
> >
> > Fine, but unrelated.
> 
> If the distros want dtbs in a flat dir and EBBR says otherwise, then
> it is related.
> 
> > >> And I can assure you
> > >> that just getting users to dd the right bootloader can be difficult...
> > >> Since DT forward and backward compatibility is often being neglected,
> > >> for example with optional properties or renamed compatibles that break
> > >> booting with previous drivers, new kernel versions often need updated
> > >> Device Trees to make use of new/enhanced drivers. Therefore it is
> > >> unfortunately often enough a necessity to load newer kernel-based .dtb
> > >> files matching the kernel (as opposed to the dream of kernel-independent
> > >> hardware descriptions) when working with the latest -rc or -next kernels
> > >> at least. For examples of DTs needing updates, look no further than
> > >> Linaro's 96boards - in case of hikey960/EDK2 GRUB is another layer where
> > >> .dtb paths may be hardcoded, ditto for arm; and Armada was an example
> > >> where the upstream bindings for the network IP changed incompatibly.
> > >
> > > Compatibility is an issue, yes, but that really has nothing to do with this.
> > >
> > >> DT overlays are another topic that is not making any progress upstream
> > >> according to the ELCE BoF, so beyond the Raspberry Pi the only known
> > >> working way to apply them is to write a U-Boot boot.scr script, which
> > >> can either reuse $fdtcontroladdr DT or use the filename $fdtfile or
> > >> hardcode one, the latter two of which would break with your renaming.
> > >
> > > DT overlays also have nothing to do with this as there aren't any in
> > > the kernel. I'm not inclined to take any either with a flat tree.
> > > We're already at 1800+ files.
> >
> > Read again: a) Breaking DT changes and b) the desire to use Overlays
> > instead of replacing the bootloaders for each change are _reasons_ why
> > people depend on .dtb filenames from the kernel source tree for their
> > boot flow today. Nothing to do with downstream .dtbo files.
> >
> > For example, remember when I reported that the kernel didn't compile DTs
> > with -@? No reaction except for Frank asking to be CC'ed - was it ever
> > fixed??? Do EDK2's or U-Boot's built-in DTs compile with -@ today?
> 
> IIRC, Frank objected to changing this globally because it will bloat
> all dtbs. And then no one did the work to make it a per dtb option.
> Maybe that was the same issue in another thread.

Being the author of one of the patches to pass in -@ so we could have
overlays work out of the box, no, there was some other problem with
making it only happen for some sub-set of DTBs.  AFAIK the current
answer is the one of a few years ago that no, if you want symbols for
overlays to work you pass in ..whatever it is.. so that -@ is passed in.
In the end it felt like there was more concern over the core concept
than anything else and I moved along due to other pressing concerns.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Masahiro Yamada]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:37 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Olof, Arnd,
>
> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> by hand.
>
> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
>
> A few questions:
>
> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a
> few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the
> list yet, but can.
>
> Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire,
> etc. for TI for example.
>
> What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup
> the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
>
>
> Sub-arch maintainers,
> 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory
> (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.
>
> Rob
>
> 8<-----------------------------------------------------------
> #!/usr/bin/env python3
>
> import os
> import re
> from git import Git
> import glob
>
> vendor_map = {
>     'imx': 'fsl',
>     'ls': 'fsl',
>     'vf': 'fsl',
>     'qcom': 'qcom',
>     'am3' : 'ti',
>     'am4' : 'ti',
>     'am5' : 'ti',
>     'da' : 'ti',
>     'dm' : 'ti',
>     'dra' : 'ti',
>     'keystone' : 'ti',
>     'omap' : 'ti',
>     'nspire' : 'ti',
>     'armada' : 'marvell',
>     'berlin' : 'marvell',
>     'dove' : 'marvell',
>     'kirkwood' : 'marvell',
>     'orion' : 'marvell',
>     'pxa' : 'marvell',
>     'mvebu' : 'marvell',
>     'mmp2' : 'marvell',
>     'arm-' : 'arm',
>     'integ' : 'arm',
>     've' : 'arm',
>     'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
>     'at91' : 'atmel',
>     'sama' : 'atmel',
>     'bcm' : 'brcm',
>     'exynos' : 'samsung',
>     's3c' : 'samsung',
>     's5p' : 'samsung',
>     'gemini' : 'cortina',
>     'hi3' : 'hisilicon',
>     'hip' : 'hisilicon',
>     'hisi' : 'hisilicon',
>     'mt' : 'mediatek',
>     'meson' : 'amlogic',
>     'owl' : 'actions',
>     'r7' : 'renesas',
>     'r8' : 'renesas',
>     'r9' : 'renesas',
>     'rk' : 'rockchip',
>     'socfpga' : 'altera',
>     'st' : 'st',
>     'spear' : 'st',
>     'sun' : 'allwinner',
>     'tegra' : 'nvidia',
>     'zynq' : 'xilinx',
>     'wm' : 'wm',
>     'uniph' : 'socionext',


I tested this script, and
I confirmed all of my DT files were moved to the socionext subdirectory.

However, this would break arm64 build
because some of my arm64 DT files include arm32 ones.

I think it is common to share base platform boards between arm and arm64.

Of course, It will be pretty easy to fix it up by hand later, though.





>     'zx' : 'zte',
> }
>
> if __name__ == "__main__":
>     g = Git('.')
>
>     g.checkout("HEAD", "arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile")
>     dts_make = open("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile", "r").read()
>
>     # make entries 1 line
>     make2 = re.sub(r'\\\n', '', dts_make)
>
>     for k,v in vendor_map.items():
>         for f in glob.iglob("arch/arm/boot/dts/" + k + "*.*"):
>             new_dir = "arch/arm/boot/dts/" + v + "/"
>             base = os.path.splitext(os.path.basename(f))[0]
>
>             os.makedirs(new_dir, exist_ok=True)
>             g.mv(f, new_dir)
>
>             # Remove the file from the makefile
>             dts_make = re.sub('.*' + base + r'\.dtb.*\\\n', '', dts_make)
>             dts_make = re.sub('.*' + base + r'\.dtb', '', dts_make)
>
>             # extract the matching makefile entry
>             reg = re.search(r'.*' + base + r'.*', make2)
>             if not reg:
>                 continue
>
>             entry = reg.group(0)
>             make2 = re.sub(r'.*' + base + r'.*', '', make2)
>             if entry:
>                 makefile = open(new_dir + 'Makefile', 'a+')
>                 print(entry, file=makefile)
>                 makefile.close()
>
>
>     for d in sorted(glob.iglob("arch/arm/boot/dts/*/")):
>         dts_make += 'subdir-y += ' + d.split(os.path.sep)[-2] + '\n'
>
>         # Add license and sort entries of sub-dir makefile
>         vendor_make = '# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0\n'
>         make_lines = open(d + 'Makefile', 'r').readlines()
>         for l in sorted(make_lines):
>             vendor_make += l
>
>         vendor_make = re.sub(r'\t', r'\\\n\t', vendor_make)
>
>         f = open(d + 'Makefile', 'w')
>         f.write(vendor_make)
>         f.close()
>         g.add(d + 'Makefile')
>
>     # Remove entries with no dtbs left
>     dts_make = re.sub(r'.*\+= \\\n\n', '', dts_make)
>
>     open("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile", "w").write(dts_make)
>     g.add("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile")



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Michal Simek]

On 05. 12. 18 5:18, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:37 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Olof, Arnd,
>>
>> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
>> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
>> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
>> by hand.
>>
>> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
>>
>> A few questions:
>>
>> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a
>> few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the
>> list yet, but can.
>>
>> Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire,
>> etc. for TI for example.
>>
>> What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup
>> the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
>>
>>
>> Sub-arch maintainers,
>> 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory
>> (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> 8<-----------------------------------------------------------
>> #!/usr/bin/env python3
>>
>> import os
>> import re
>> from git import Git
>> import glob
>>
>> vendor_map = {
>>     'imx': 'fsl',
>>     'ls': 'fsl',
>>     'vf': 'fsl',
>>     'qcom': 'qcom',
>>     'am3' : 'ti',
>>     'am4' : 'ti',
>>     'am5' : 'ti',
>>     'da' : 'ti',
>>     'dm' : 'ti',
>>     'dra' : 'ti',
>>     'keystone' : 'ti',
>>     'omap' : 'ti',
>>     'nspire' : 'ti',
>>     'armada' : 'marvell',
>>     'berlin' : 'marvell',
>>     'dove' : 'marvell',
>>     'kirkwood' : 'marvell',
>>     'orion' : 'marvell',
>>     'pxa' : 'marvell',
>>     'mvebu' : 'marvell',
>>     'mmp2' : 'marvell',
>>     'arm-' : 'arm',
>>     'integ' : 'arm',
>>     've' : 'arm',
>>     'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
>>     'at91' : 'atmel',
>>     'sama' : 'atmel',
>>     'bcm' : 'brcm',
>>     'exynos' : 'samsung',
>>     's3c' : 'samsung',
>>     's5p' : 'samsung',
>>     'gemini' : 'cortina',
>>     'hi3' : 'hisilicon',
>>     'hip' : 'hisilicon',
>>     'hisi' : 'hisilicon',
>>     'mt' : 'mediatek',
>>     'meson' : 'amlogic',
>>     'owl' : 'actions',
>>     'r7' : 'renesas',
>>     'r8' : 'renesas',
>>     'r9' : 'renesas',
>>     'rk' : 'rockchip',
>>     'socfpga' : 'altera',
>>     'st' : 'st',
>>     'spear' : 'st',
>>     'sun' : 'allwinner',
>>     'tegra' : 'nvidia',
>>     'zynq' : 'xilinx',
>>     'wm' : 'wm',
>>     'uniph' : 'socionext',
> 
> 
> I tested this script, and
> I confirmed all of my DT files were moved to the socionext subdirectory.
> 
> However, this would break arm64 build
> because some of my arm64 DT files include arm32 ones.
> 
> I think it is common to share base platform boards between arm and arm64.

+1

Just a note here that for Zynq and ZynqMP there should be doable to run
Microblaze in programmable logic with reusing fixed IPs.
There could be also other soft core CPUs which could do this on Xilinx
devices.

It means maybe moving this out of arm/arm64 to more generic location
would be one more step to consider as the part of this move.

Thanks,
Michal

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Jisheng Zhang]

Hi Rob,

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:36:49 -0600
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:

> Olof, Arnd,
> 
> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the 
> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which 
> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups 
> by hand.
> 
> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a 
> few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the 
> list yet, but can.
> 
> Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire, 
> etc. for TI for example.
> 
> What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup 
> the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
> 
> 
> Sub-arch maintainers, 
> 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory 
> (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.
> 
> Rob
> 
> 8<-----------------------------------------------------------
> #!/usr/bin/env python3
> 
> import os
> import re
> from git import Git
> import glob
> 
> vendor_map = {
>     'imx': 'fsl',
>     'ls': 'fsl',
>     'vf': 'fsl',
>     'qcom': 'qcom',
>     'am3' : 'ti',
>     'am4' : 'ti',
>     'am5' : 'ti',
>     'da' : 'ti',
>     'dm' : 'ti',
>     'dra' : 'ti',
>     'keystone' : 'ti',
>     'omap' : 'ti',
>     'nspire' : 'ti',
>     'armada' : 'marvell',
>     'berlin' : 'marvell',

Now, berlin SoC is synaptics' SoC ;)

Thanks

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 7:02 AM Jisheng Zhang
<Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com> wrote:
> Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:

> >     'armada' : 'marvell',
> >     'berlin' : 'marvell',
>
> Now, berlin SoC is synaptics' SoC ;)

This illustrates perfectly the artificial nature of using vendor names
as prefixes with DT properties, prefix names, directories etc.

Companies start out purporting to be some eternal entity and the
next day they buy each other left and right and license their
hardware IP to whoever wants it.

It actually makes much more sense to organize these files by
the SoC family name, because that doesn't change when the
SoC is sold to another company.

omap/* containing all OMAP platforms, msm/* for all Qualcomm
SoCs etc. SoC names/codenames are at least eternal once they
have been manufactured and we can keep them together
no matter what vendor currently controls it.

However I think there was a fork in the road ages ago when
someone or something decided to use vendor prefixes for
DT properties leading to this situation that we can no longer
back out of.

It has the side effect of splitting DTS files with the same SoC
in two different folders marvell/* and synaptics/*
it's a bit meh.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Jisheng Zhang]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:19:49 +0100 Linus Walleij wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 7:02 AM Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > Rob Herring wrote:  
> 
> > >     'armada' : 'marvell',
> > >     'berlin' : 'marvell',  
> >
> > Now, berlin SoC is synaptics' SoC ;)  
> 
> This illustrates perfectly the artificial nature of using vendor names
> as prefixes with DT properties, prefix names, directories etc.
> 
> Companies start out purporting to be some eternal entity and the
> next day they buy each other left and right and license their
> hardware IP to whoever wants it.
> 
> It actually makes much more sense to organize these files by
> the SoC family name, because that doesn't change when the
> SoC is sold to another company.

If the SoC is sold to another company, then

case1: The original SoC family is renamed to another family.

case2: Based on the original SoC, a newer SoC family comes out.

I'm not sure it's still fine to put the new or renamed SoCs' files into the
original SoC directory.

Another issue is: who will be the maintainer of new or renamed SoC family?

Thanks,
Jisheng



> 
> omap/* containing all OMAP platforms, msm/* for all Qualcomm
> SoCs etc. SoC names/codenames are at least eternal once they
> have been manufactured and we can keep them together
> no matter what vendor currently controls it.
> 
> However I think there was a fork in the road ages ago when
> someone or something decided to use vendor prefixes for
> DT properties leading to this situation that we can no longer
> back out of.
> 
> It has the side effect of splitting DTS files with the same SoC
> in two different folders marvell/* and synaptics/*
> it's a bit meh.
> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 9:34 AM Jisheng Zhang
<Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com> wrote:
> [Me]
> > It actually makes much more sense to organize these files by
> > the SoC family name, because that doesn't change when the
> > SoC is sold to another company.
>
> If the SoC is sold to another company, then
>
> case1: The original SoC family is renamed to another family.
>
> case2: Based on the original SoC, a newer SoC family comes out.
>
> I'm not sure it's still fine to put the new or renamed SoCs' files into the
> original SoC directory.
>
> Another issue is: who will be the maintainer of new or renamed SoC family?

Of course marketing prefer to associate the acquired
company's SoC with itself and rename it.

But that doesn't account for the case where the same SoC
is produced by the new owner under the old name.

Example:
The Gemini SoC arch/arm/boot/dts/gemini-*
https://dflund.se/~triad/krad/gemini/

This SoC was produced by StorLink Semiconductor in Taiwan
early 2000s.

At some point between 2000 and 2008 the company changed
its name and/or got restructured and was renamed
Storm Semiconductor. The masks for the packaging was retained
so the chips still said "StorLink".

Then in 2008 Cortina Systems acquired Storm Semiconductor
eventually changed the masks and and renamed the identical
chips from "SLnnnn" to "CSnnnn" but the chip inside the package
was still the same.

The SoC is still codenamed "Gemini", that is the only constant.

And now we will put these devicetrees into folder...?

storlink/
storm/
cortina/

If we look at the chip packageing, it should be different
folders depending on what supplier was used when the device
was manufactured.

This is why the Vendor scheme is not really working.

Another issue is illustrated again with the Synaptics device:
an SoC produced exclusively for Synaptics (IIUC) but
with a intimate relationship to a very easily identifed SoC.

This naming nomenclature is a half-measure and a can
of worms, that is my only point.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:20 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 7:02 AM Jisheng Zhang
> <Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com> wrote:
> > Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > >     'armada' : 'marvell',
> > >     'berlin' : 'marvell',
> >
> > Now, berlin SoC is synaptics' SoC ;)

But we're not changing the names of existing SoCs and at least so far
there aren't new 32-bit berlin SoCs.

> This illustrates perfectly the artificial nature of using vendor names
> as prefixes with DT properties, prefix names, directories etc.
>
> Companies start out purporting to be some eternal entity and the
> next day they buy each other left and right and license their
> hardware IP to whoever wants it.
>
> It actually makes much more sense to organize these files by
> the SoC family name, because that doesn't change when the
> SoC is sold to another company.

Uh, no. i.MX23 is a Sigmatel chip STMP?? which shared absolutely
nothing with other i.MX chips except for the derivatives that
followed. IIRC, STMP chips were even partially upstream.

Marketing names change at the whim of marketing and don't even require
a sale of a company.

> omap/* containing all OMAP platforms, msm/* for all Qualcomm
> SoCs etc. SoC names/codenames are at least eternal once they
> have been manufactured and we can keep them together
> no matter what vendor currently controls it.

Where do TI amXXXX chips go? Not all QC chips are 'msm' and I think
that name is abandoned now. No solution is going to be perfect.

We are already use vendors for arm64 (except for the oddball exynos),
so if we change arm, we shouldn't do something different. EBBR is also
going with vendor for firmware directories in the EFI system
partition. Speak up if you want to change that before 1.0.

> However I think there was a fork in the road ages ago when
> someone or something decided to use vendor prefixes for
> DT properties leading to this situation that we can no longer
> back out of.

It was simpler times...

> It has the side effect of splitting DTS files with the same SoC
> in two different folders marvell/* and synaptics/*
> it's a bit meh.

All I really care about here is things are organized by maintainers.
Someone care to write a script to ensure all 1800 files have a
maintainer attached to them (that is not me)?

Rob

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Linus Walleij]

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:02 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:

> We are already use vendors for arm64 (except for the oddball exynos),
> so if we change arm, we shouldn't do something different. EBBR is also
> going with vendor for firmware directories in the EFI system
> partition. Speak up if you want to change that before 1.0.

I don't think there is a silver bullet for this, except "use vendor
or whatever makes most sense", like if in doubt use vendor but
no need to overspecify. Rough consensus, not perfect consensus.

> All I really care about here is things are organized by maintainers.
> Someone care to write a script to ensure all 1800 files have a
> maintainer attached to them (that is not me)?

OK why not let the maintainers choose the name of the subdir
rather than insist to set it to $vendor? Just consistency?

For the stuff I maintain please use:

    'arm-' : 'arm',
    'integ' : 'arm',
    've' : 'arm',

These are fine.

Drop this

-    'gemini' : 'cortina',

Just use the "gemini" prefix.
Because this was three different vendors so let's stick with the
SoC codename.

And for 'ste' I would use 'st-ericsson' or 'stericsson' (also a valid
vendor) so it is readable.

It's no super-big deal so if you think my view is just annoying I
am not going to persist, I will just get over it.

Thanks,
Linus Walleij

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello,

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:01:59AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> i.MX23 is a Sigmatel chip STMP??

I think the Freescale i.MX23 didn't exist at Sigmatel back then. AFAIK
this is a new design using IP from Sigmatel after the aquisition.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:39 AM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:01:59AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > i.MX23 is a Sigmatel chip STMP??
>
> I think the Freescale i.MX23 didn't exist at Sigmatel back then. AFAIK
> this is a new design using IP from Sigmatel after the aquisition.

It is not. I was in the i.MX group which Sigmatel was merged into at
the time. Purely marketing rebranding.

Rob

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Alexandre Belloni]

On 06/12/2018 07:58:24-0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:39 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:01:59AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > i.MX23 is a Sigmatel chip STMP??
> >
> > I think the Freescale i.MX23 didn't exist at Sigmatel back then. AFAIK
> > this is a new design using IP from Sigmatel after the aquisition.
> 
> It is not. I was in the i.MX group which Sigmatel was merged into at
> the time. Purely marketing rebranding.
> 

Wouldn't it be easier to name the directory to the corresponding mach-*
entry?

So, imx23 and imx28 would go to mxs/, other imx in imx/. And this also
solves the Marvell mess with the Synaptics Socs going in berlin/ and the
other ones in mvebu/.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Linus Walleij]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:05 PM Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
> On 06/12/2018 07:58:24-0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:39 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:01:59AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > i.MX23 is a Sigmatel chip STMP??
> > >
> > > I think the Freescale i.MX23 didn't exist at Sigmatel back then. AFAIK
> > > this is a new design using IP from Sigmatel after the aquisition.
> >
> > It is not. I was in the i.MX group which Sigmatel was merged into at
> > the time. Purely marketing rebranding.
> >
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to name the directory to the corresponding mach-*
> entry?
>
> So, imx23 and imx28 would go to mxs/, other imx in imx/. And this also
> solves the Marvell mess with the Synaptics Socs going in berlin/ and the
> other ones in mvebu/.

I like this idea.

We discussed merging all ARM reference design mach-* to one dir
if I just name that mach-arm then we get a convergence to the
vendor name in some organic way.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 8:30 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:05 PM Alexandre Belloni
> <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > On 06/12/2018 07:58:24-0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:39 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > > <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:01:59AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > i.MX23 is a Sigmatel chip STMP??
> > > >
> > > > I think the Freescale i.MX23 didn't exist at Sigmatel back then. AFAIK
> > > > this is a new design using IP from Sigmatel after the aquisition.
> > >
> > > It is not. I was in the i.MX group which Sigmatel was merged into at
> > > the time. Purely marketing rebranding.
> > >
> >
> > Wouldn't it be easier to name the directory to the corresponding mach-*
> > entry?
> >
> > So, imx23 and imx28 would go to mxs/, other imx in imx/. And this also
> > solves the Marvell mess with the Synaptics Socs going in berlin/ and the
> > other ones in mvebu/.
>
> I like this idea.

Fine by me though I think marvell gets more complicated than that.
I'll try a pass at that at least for the cases with a mixture of
families.

> We discussed merging all ARM reference design mach-* to one dir
> if I just name that mach-arm then we get a convergence to the
> vendor name in some organic way.

TBC, you want .../boot/dts/arm/* for all the ARM, Ltd boards? Just
making sure as you were arguing against vendor names. :)

Rob

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Linus Walleij]

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:57 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 8:30 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:

> > We discussed merging all ARM reference design mach-* to one dir
> > if I just name that mach-arm then we get a convergence to the
> > vendor name in some organic way.
>
> TBC, you want .../boot/dts/arm/* for all the ARM, Ltd boards? Just
> making sure as you were arguing against vendor names. :)

I am not against vendor names, but I am also for SoC
names because I think whatever makes most sense should
be the rule, so both/and not either/or. One does not exclude
the other. It's just a name.

In this case what
I meant was that while we (me and Arnd) originally discussed
merging it all into mach-versatile (how would you know)
if I instead merge it all into mach-arm, we get a 1:1 correspondence
between mach-dir and vendor name and DTS dir so everyone
is happy.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Tony Lindgren]

* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [181206 22:12]:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:57 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 8:30 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> > > We discussed merging all ARM reference design mach-* to one dir
> > > if I just name that mach-arm then we get a convergence to the
> > > vendor name in some organic way.
> >
> > TBC, you want .../boot/dts/arm/* for all the ARM, Ltd boards? Just
> > making sure as you were arguing against vendor names. :)
> 
> I am not against vendor names, but I am also for SoC
> names because I think whatever makes most sense should
> be the rule, so both/and not either/or. One does not exclude
> the other. It's just a name.
> 
> In this case what
> I meant was that while we (me and Arnd) originally discussed
> merging it all into mach-versatile (how would you know)
> if I instead merge it all into mach-arm, we get a 1:1 correspondence
> between mach-dir and vendor name and DTS dir so everyone
> is happy.

With the number of trade names we've already seen with
the TI SoCs, I'd probably prefer arch/arm/boot/dts/ti.
What used to be omap is now dra7 and am437x and so on.

And for timing, doing this just before -rc1 gets tagged
seems like a good time to do it. At least I have still
pending large dts changes waiting that I'd rather not
send a pull request out for until next week :)

Regards,

Tony

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Nicolas.Ferre]

On 04/12/2018 at 19:36, Rob Herring wrote:
> Olof, Arnd,
> 
> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> by hand.
> 
> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a
> few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the
> list yet, but can.
> 
> Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire,
> etc. for TI for example.
> 
> What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup
> the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
> 
> 
> Sub-arch maintainers,
> 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory
> (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.

It'll certainly break some of our scripts (CI, building scripts, overlay 
makefiles, etc.). We already experienced it when adding the "dts" 
directory. But if it's needed...

> 8<-----------------------------------------------------------
> #!/usr/bin/env python3
> 
> import os
> import re
> from git import Git
> import glob
> 
> vendor_map = {

[..]

>      'integ' : 'arm',
>      've' : 'arm',
>      'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
>      'at91' : 'atmel',

As it's a new directory, what about creating a "microchip" one as it's 
our vendor's name now.

>      'sama' : 'atmel',

If desired, you can extend to sama5d for the current files.

Adding the entry 'sam9' : "microchip", can be future proof...


Best regards,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Neil Armstrong]

On 04/12/2018 19:36, Rob Herring wrote:
> Olof, Arnd,
> 
> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the 
> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which 
> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups 
> by hand.
> 
> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a 
> few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the 
> list yet, but can.
> 
> Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire, 
> etc. for TI for example.
> 
> What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup 
> the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
> 
> 
> Sub-arch maintainers, 
> 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory 
> (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.
> 
> Rob
> 
> 8<-----------------------------------------------------------
> #!/usr/bin/env python3
> 
> import os
> import re
> from git import Git
> import glob
> 
> vendor_map = {
>     'imx': 'fsl',
>     'ls': 'fsl',
>     'vf': 'fsl',
>     'qcom': 'qcom',
>     'am3' : 'ti',
>     'am4' : 'ti',
>     'am5' : 'ti',
>     'da' : 'ti',
>     'dm' : 'ti',
>     'dra' : 'ti',
>     'keystone' : 'ti',
>     'omap' : 'ti',
>     'nspire' : 'ti',
>     'armada' : 'marvell',
>     'berlin' : 'marvell',
>     'dove' : 'marvell',
>     'kirkwood' : 'marvell',
>     'orion' : 'marvell',
>     'pxa' : 'marvell',
>     'mvebu' : 'marvell',
>     'mmp2' : 'marvell',
>     'arm-' : 'arm',
>     'integ' : 'arm',
>     've' : 'arm',
>     'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
>     'at91' : 'atmel',
>     'sama' : 'atmel',
>     'bcm' : 'brcm',
>     'exynos' : 'samsung',
>     's3c' : 'samsung',
>     's5p' : 'samsung',
>     'gemini' : 'cortina',
>     'hi3' : 'hisilicon',
>     'hip' : 'hisilicon',
>     'hisi' : 'hisilicon',
>     'mt' : 'mediatek',
>     'meson' : 'amlogic',
>     'owl' : 'actions',
>     'r7' : 'renesas',
>     'r8' : 'renesas',
>     'r9' : 'renesas',
>     'rk' : 'rockchip',
>     'socfpga' : 'altera',
>     'st' : 'st',
>     'spear' : 'st',
>     'sun' : 'allwinner',
>     'tegra' : 'nvidia',
>     'zynq' : 'xilinx',
>     'wm' : 'wm',
>     'uniph' : 'socionext',
>     'zx' : 'zte',
      'ox8' : 'oxsemi',


I volunteer as a tribute !

This is a low-priority platform, you can move them in a separate directory if you want.

Neil


> }
> 
> if __name__ == "__main__":
>     g = Git('.')
> 
>     g.checkout("HEAD", "arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile")
>     dts_make = open("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile", "r").read()
> 
>     # make entries 1 line
>     make2 = re.sub(r'\\\n', '', dts_make)
> 
>     for k,v in vendor_map.items():
>         for f in glob.iglob("arch/arm/boot/dts/" + k + "*.*"):
>             new_dir = "arch/arm/boot/dts/" + v + "/"
>             base = os.path.splitext(os.path.basename(f))[0]
> 
>             os.makedirs(new_dir, exist_ok=True)
>             g.mv(f, new_dir)
> 
>             # Remove the file from the makefile
>             dts_make = re.sub('.*' + base + r'\.dtb.*\\\n', '', dts_make)
>             dts_make = re.sub('.*' + base + r'\.dtb', '', dts_make)
> 
>             # extract the matching makefile entry
>             reg = re.search(r'.*' + base + r'.*', make2)
>             if not reg:
>                 continue
> 
>             entry = reg.group(0)
>             make2 = re.sub(r'.*' + base + r'.*', '', make2)
>             if entry:
>                 makefile = open(new_dir + 'Makefile', 'a+')
>                 print(entry, file=makefile)
>                 makefile.close()
> 
> 
>     for d in sorted(glob.iglob("arch/arm/boot/dts/*/")):
>         dts_make += 'subdir-y += ' + d.split(os.path.sep)[-2] + '\n'
> 
>         # Add license and sort entries of sub-dir makefile
>         vendor_make = '# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0\n'
>         make_lines = open(d + 'Makefile', 'r').readlines()
>         for l in sorted(make_lines):
>             vendor_make += l
> 
>         vendor_make = re.sub(r'\t', r'\\\n\t', vendor_make)
> 
>         f = open(d + 'Makefile', 'w')
>         f.write(vendor_make)
>         f.close()
>         g.add(d + 'Makefile')
> 
>     # Remove entries with no dtbs left
>     dts_make = re.sub(r'.*\+= \\\n\n', '', dts_make)
> 
>     open("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile", "w").write(dts_make)
>     g.add("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile")
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Li Yang]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:37 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Olof, Arnd,
>
> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> by hand.
>
> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
>
> A few questions:
>
> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a
> few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the
> list yet, but can.
>
> Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire,
> etc. for TI for example.
>
> What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup
> the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
>
>
> Sub-arch maintainers,
> 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory
> (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.
>
> Rob
>
> 8<-----------------------------------------------------------
> #!/usr/bin/env python3
>
> import os
> import re
> from git import Git
> import glob
>
> vendor_map = {
>     'imx': 'fsl',
>     'ls': 'fsl',
>     'vf': 'fsl',

Probably we can update "fsl" to "nxp" now since you are at it.  :)  We
didn't try to update this previously because for the past two years we
were thinking that it will need to be updated to qcom again soon.

>     'qcom': 'qcom',
>     'am3' : 'ti',
>     'am4' : 'ti',
>     'am5' : 'ti',
>     'da' : 'ti',
>     'dm' : 'ti',
>     'dra' : 'ti',
>     'keystone' : 'ti',
>     'omap' : 'ti',
>     'nspire' : 'ti',
>     'armada' : 'marvell',
>     'berlin' : 'marvell',
>     'dove' : 'marvell',
>     'kirkwood' : 'marvell',
>     'orion' : 'marvell',
>     'pxa' : 'marvell',
>     'mvebu' : 'marvell',
>     'mmp2' : 'marvell',
>     'arm-' : 'arm',
>     'integ' : 'arm',
>     've' : 'arm',
>     'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
>     'at91' : 'atmel',
>     'sama' : 'atmel',
>     'bcm' : 'brcm',
>     'exynos' : 'samsung',
>     's3c' : 'samsung',
>     's5p' : 'samsung',
>     'gemini' : 'cortina',
>     'hi3' : 'hisilicon',
>     'hip' : 'hisilicon',
>     'hisi' : 'hisilicon',
>     'mt' : 'mediatek',
>     'meson' : 'amlogic',
>     'owl' : 'actions',
>     'r7' : 'renesas',
>     'r8' : 'renesas',
>     'r9' : 'renesas',
>     'rk' : 'rockchip',
>     'socfpga' : 'altera',
>     'st' : 'st',
>     'spear' : 'st',
>     'sun' : 'allwinner',
>     'tegra' : 'nvidia',
>     'zynq' : 'xilinx',
>     'wm' : 'wm',
>     'uniph' : 'socionext',
>     'zx' : 'zte',
> }
>
> if __name__ == "__main__":
>     g = Git('.')
>
>     g.checkout("HEAD", "arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile")
>     dts_make = open("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile", "r").read()
>
>     # make entries 1 line
>     make2 = re.sub(r'\\\n', '', dts_make)
>
>     for k,v in vendor_map.items():
>         for f in glob.iglob("arch/arm/boot/dts/" + k + "*.*"):
>             new_dir = "arch/arm/boot/dts/" + v + "/"
>             base = os.path.splitext(os.path.basename(f))[0]
>
>             os.makedirs(new_dir, exist_ok=True)
>             g.mv(f, new_dir)
>
>             # Remove the file from the makefile
>             dts_make = re.sub('.*' + base + r'\.dtb.*\\\n', '', dts_make)
>             dts_make = re.sub('.*' + base + r'\.dtb', '', dts_make)
>
>             # extract the matching makefile entry
>             reg = re.search(r'.*' + base + r'.*', make2)
>             if not reg:
>                 continue
>
>             entry = reg.group(0)
>             make2 = re.sub(r'.*' + base + r'.*', '', make2)
>             if entry:
>                 makefile = open(new_dir + 'Makefile', 'a+')
>                 print(entry, file=makefile)
>                 makefile.close()
>
>
>     for d in sorted(glob.iglob("arch/arm/boot/dts/*/")):
>         dts_make += 'subdir-y += ' + d.split(os.path.sep)[-2] + '\n'
>
>         # Add license and sort entries of sub-dir makefile
>         vendor_make = '# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0\n'
>         make_lines = open(d + 'Makefile', 'r').readlines()
>         for l in sorted(make_lines):
>             vendor_make += l
>
>         vendor_make = re.sub(r'\t', r'\\\n\t', vendor_make)
>
>         f = open(d + 'Makefile', 'w')
>         f.write(vendor_make)
>         f.close()
>         g.add(d + 'Makefile')
>
>     # Remove entries with no dtbs left
>     dts_make = re.sub(r'.*\+= \\\n\n', '', dts_make)
>
>     open("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile", "w").write(dts_make)
>     g.add("arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile")

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:36 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Olof, Arnd,
>
> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> by hand.
>
> MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
>
> A few questions:
>
> Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a
> few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the
> list yet, but can.
>
> Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire,
> etc. for TI for example.
>
> What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup
> the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
>
>
> Sub-arch maintainers,
> 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory
> (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.

Here's an updated mapping filled out with the rest of the platforms
and using SoC family names in some cases as discussed. The move is
completely scripted now including include fixups (though any new
includes could break things). So mainly just need to bikeshed the
directory mapping. Not sure if marvell should be split up more or not.
I split out pxa2xx and pxa3xx, but then there's other pxa chips I
think aren't really related. TI is still all one directory except
nspire. I was going to split out davinci too, but it's only a couple
of files. Sub-arch maintainers need to chime in with what they want.

A branch is here including a fix to dtbs_install:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/robh/linux.git arm-dts-move

vendor_map = {
    'alphascale' : 'alphascale',
    'alpine' : 'alpine',
    'artpec' : 'axis',
    'atlas' : 'sirf',
    'prima' : 'sirf',
    'axm' : 'lsi',
    'cx9' : 'cnxt',
    'ecx' : 'calxeda',
    'highbank' : 'calxeda',
    'efm' : 'efm32',
    'ep7' : 'cirrus',
    'mxs': 'mxs',
    'imx23': 'mxs',
    'imx28': 'mxs',
    'imx': 'imx',
    'ls': 'fsl',
    'vf': 'fsl',
    'qcom': 'qcom',
    'am3' : 'ti',
    'am4' : 'ti',
    'am5' : 'ti',
    'dra' : 'ti',
    'keystone' : 'ti',
    'omap' : 'ti',
    'compulab' : 'ti',
    'logicpd' : 'ti',
    'elpida' : 'ti',
    'motorola-cpcap' : 'ti',
    'twl' : 'ti',
    'da' : 'ti',
    'dm' : 'ti',
    'nspire' : 'nspire',
    'armada' : 'marvell',
    'dove' : 'marvell',
    'kirkwood' : 'marvell',
    'orion' : 'marvell',
    'mvebu' : 'marvell',
    'mmp2' : 'marvell',
    'berlin' : 'berlin',
    'pxa2' : 'pxa',
    'pxa3' : 'pxa',
    'pxa' : 'marvell',
    'arm-' : 'arm',
    'integ' : 'arm',
    'mps' : 'arm',
    've' : 'arm',
    'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
    'at91' : 'at91',
    'sama' : 'at91',
    'usb_' : 'at91',
    'tny_' : 'at91',
    'mpa1600' : 'at91',
    'animeo_ip' : 'at91',
    'aks-cdu' : 'at91',
    'ethernut5' : 'at91',
    'evk-pro3' : 'at91',
    'pm9g45' : 'at91',
    'ge86' : 'at91',
    'bcm' : 'brcm',
    'exynos' : 'exynos',
    's3c' : 'samsung',
    's5p' : 'samsung',
    'gemini' : 'gemini',
    'hi3' : 'hisilicon',
    'hip' : 'hisilicon',
    'hisi' : 'hisilicon',
    'mt' : 'mediatek',
    'meson' : 'meson',
    'moxa' : 'moxa',
    'nuvo' : 'nuvoton',
    'lpc' : 'lpc',
    'owl' : 'actions',
    'ox8' : 'oxsemi',
    'picox' : 'picoxcell',
    'r7' : 'renesas',
    'r8' : 'renesas',
    'r9' : 'renesas',
    'emev2' : 'renesas',
    'sh73a' : 'renesas',
    'gr-' : 'renesas',
    'iwg' : 'renesas',
    'rk' : 'rockchip',
    'rv11' : 'rockchip',
    'socfpga' : 'socfpga',
    'stm' : 'stm32',
    'sti' : 'sti',
    'st-pin' : 'sti',
    'ste' : 'st-ericsson',
    'spear' : 'spear',
    'sun' : 'allwinner',
    'axp' : 'allwinner',
    'tango' : 'sigma',
    'tegra' : 'nvidia',
    'uniph' : 'socionext',
    'vt8500' : 'vt8500',
    'wm8' : 'vt8500',
    'xen' : 'xen',
    'zx' : 'zte',
    'zynq' : 'xilinx',
}

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 23:33, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:36 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Olof, Arnd,
> >
> > I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> > makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> > isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> > by hand.
> >
> > MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> >
> > A few questions:
> >
> > Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a
> > few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the
> > list yet, but can.
> >
> > Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire,
> > etc. for TI for example.
> >
> > What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup
> > the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
> >
> >
> > Sub-arch maintainers,
> > 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory
> > (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.
>
> Here's an updated mapping filled out with the rest of the platforms
> and using SoC family names in some cases as discussed. The move is
> completely scripted now including include fixups (though any new
> includes could break things). So mainly just need to bikeshed the
> directory mapping. Not sure if marvell should be split up more or not.
> I split out pxa2xx and pxa3xx, but then there's other pxa chips I
> think aren't really related. TI is still all one directory except
> nspire. I was going to split out davinci too, but it's only a couple
> of files. Sub-arch maintainers need to chime in with what they want.
>
> A branch is here including a fix to dtbs_install:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/robh/linux.git arm-dts-move
>
> vendor_map = {
>     'alphascale' : 'alphascale',
>     'alpine' : 'alpine',
>     'artpec' : 'axis',
>     'atlas' : 'sirf',
>     'prima' : 'sirf',
>     'axm' : 'lsi',
>     'cx9' : 'cnxt',
>     'ecx' : 'calxeda',
>     'highbank' : 'calxeda',
>     'efm' : 'efm32',
>     'ep7' : 'cirrus',
>     'mxs': 'mxs',
>     'imx23': 'mxs',
>     'imx28': 'mxs',
>     'imx': 'imx',
>     'ls': 'fsl',
>     'vf': 'fsl',
>     'qcom': 'qcom',
>     'am3' : 'ti',
>     'am4' : 'ti',
>     'am5' : 'ti',
>     'dra' : 'ti',
>     'keystone' : 'ti',
>     'omap' : 'ti',
>     'compulab' : 'ti',
>     'logicpd' : 'ti',
>     'elpida' : 'ti',
>     'motorola-cpcap' : 'ti',
>     'twl' : 'ti',
>     'da' : 'ti',
>     'dm' : 'ti',
>     'nspire' : 'nspire',
>     'armada' : 'marvell',
>     'dove' : 'marvell',
>     'kirkwood' : 'marvell',
>     'orion' : 'marvell',
>     'mvebu' : 'marvell',
>     'mmp2' : 'marvell',
>     'berlin' : 'berlin',
>     'pxa2' : 'pxa',
>     'pxa3' : 'pxa',
>     'pxa' : 'marvell',
>     'arm-' : 'arm',
>     'integ' : 'arm',
>     'mps' : 'arm',
>     've' : 'arm',
>     'aspeed' : 'aspeed',
>     'at91' : 'at91',
>     'sama' : 'at91',
>     'usb_' : 'at91',
>     'tny_' : 'at91',
>     'mpa1600' : 'at91',
>     'animeo_ip' : 'at91',
>     'aks-cdu' : 'at91',
>     'ethernut5' : 'at91',
>     'evk-pro3' : 'at91',
>     'pm9g45' : 'at91',
>     'ge86' : 'at91',
>     'bcm' : 'brcm',
>     'exynos' : 'exynos',
>     's3c' : 'samsung',
>     's5p' : 'samsung',

Since Exynos is Samsung, I would prefer consistency here so let's put
everything under vendor - samsung. I understand that It will be
different than arm64 but that's the problem of choosing non-vendor
name for arm64 at first place. So let's go with:
     'exynos' : 'samsung',
     's3c' : 'samsung',
     's5p' : 'samsung',

Best regards,
Krzysztof

>     'gemini' : 'gemini',
>     'hi3' : 'hisilicon',
>     'hip' : 'hisilicon',
>     'hisi' : 'hisilicon',
>     'mt' : 'mediatek',
>     'meson' : 'meson',
>     'moxa' : 'moxa',
>     'nuvo' : 'nuvoton',
>     'lpc' : 'lpc',
>     'owl' : 'actions',
>     'ox8' : 'oxsemi',
>     'picox' : 'picoxcell',
>     'r7' : 'renesas',
>     'r8' : 'renesas',
>     'r9' : 'renesas',
>     'emev2' : 'renesas',
>     'sh73a' : 'renesas',
>     'gr-' : 'renesas',
>     'iwg' : 'renesas',
>     'rk' : 'rockchip',
>     'rv11' : 'rockchip',
>     'socfpga' : 'socfpga',
>     'stm' : 'stm32',
>     'sti' : 'sti',
>     'st-pin' : 'sti',
>     'ste' : 'st-ericsson',
>     'spear' : 'spear',
>     'sun' : 'allwinner',
>     'axp' : 'allwinner',
>     'tango' : 'sigma',
>     'tegra' : 'nvidia',
>     'uniph' : 'socionext',
>     'vt8500' : 'vt8500',
>     'wm8' : 'vt8500',
>     'xen' : 'xen',
>     'zx' : 'zte',
>     'zynq' : 'xilinx',
> }

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 11:33 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:

> Here's an updated mapping filled out with the rest of the platforms
> and using SoC family names in some cases as discussed.

This looks really good to me!
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

>The move is
> completely scripted now including include fixups (though any new
> includes could break things). So mainly just need to bikeshed the
> directory mapping.

I did have a serious minute to think over whether this was a
bikeshedding type discussion and the outcome is as unimportant
as the color of some bikeshed. Went as far as to re-read Parsons
(hilarious!) original essay and the first chapter of Wittgensteins
Tractatus. I concluded it was more profound than that for several
reasons.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Olof Johansson]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 04:33:41PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 12:36 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Olof, Arnd,
> >
> > I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the
> > makefiles. It doesn't handle files not following a common prefix which
> > isn't many and some includes within the dts files will need some fixups
> > by hand.
> >
> > MAINTAINERS will also need updating.
> >
> > A few questions:
> >
> > Do we want to move absolutely everything to subdirs? There's quite a
> > few platforms with only 1-2 platforms. I haven't added these to the
> > list yet, but can.
> >
> > Do any vendors need another level of directories? davinci, omap, nspire,
> > etc. for TI for example.
> >
> > What to do with armv7m.dtsi? I guess it should remain and we just fixup
> > the include. There may be a few other cross vendor things.
> >
> >
> > Sub-arch maintainers,
> > 'vendor_map' below is the mapping of file prefix to new subdirectory
> > (the SoC vendor prefix). Please comment if there are any issues.
> 
> Here's an updated mapping filled out with the rest of the platforms
> and using SoC family names in some cases as discussed. The move is
> completely scripted now including include fixups (though any new
> includes could break things). So mainly just need to bikeshed the
> directory mapping. Not sure if marvell should be split up more or not.
> I split out pxa2xx and pxa3xx, but then there's other pxa chips I
> think aren't really related. TI is still all one directory except
> nspire. I was going to split out davinci too, but it's only a couple
> of files. Sub-arch maintainers need to chime in with what they want.

I think we can debate this forever if we want to, and of course when product
families change owners (or when companies merge or change names) it will be
tempting to rename or move files. But I think we'll treat this the same way as
we do with bindings and other aspects of the kernel: some platforms will have
legacy names that might not describe their current state but documents the
lineage of the product. For that, it might be slightly easier to use product
family names instead of company ditto, but I really don't care enough to
request changes.

Also, since the subdirectory doesn't influence install path on 32-bit,
renames shouldn't be the end of the world (but I'm likely to turn down
those requests beyond the possible initial "we miscategorized this
platform" kind).


-Olof

Re: Moving ARM dts files

[Ian Campbell]

On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 12:36 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> I've put together a script to move the dts files and update the 
> makefiles.

Anything here which the split-devicetree tree[0] needs to care about?

I think this is all just about file movement contained entirely
underneath arch/arm/boot/dts, in which case the answer *should* be
"no".

Ian.

[0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git/