From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] MAINTAINERS: Refactor device tree maintainership Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <1374290388-19308-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@linaro.org> <1374290388-19308-3-git-send-email-grant.likely@linaro.org> <1374511851.3609.10.camel@hornet> <51ED9018.1020003@gmail.com> <1374599667.25700.92.camel@hornet> <51EEC49A.4080909@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51EEC49A.4080909@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: Pawel Moll , Rob Herring , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , Olof Johansson , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Stephen Warren wrote: > Or perhaps, we could move *.dts around in the kernel to match the > proposed DT tree structure before that point in time? > > >> we will still need > >> to copy dt-bindings into the kernel. Also, I think we should move all > >> dts files out of arch subdirs and arrange by vendor or soc family. I'm > >> sure there are some cases that structure doesn't fit well, but there is > >> very little in a dts tied to a cpu architecture. > > > > I couldn't agree more. So: > > > > /include/dt-bindings/vendor/*? > > > /dts/vendor/*? > > I would tend to prefer that option, ... Please make a generic top-level directory for DT and move the dtc code in there as well. Something like: /devicetree/dtc/* /devicetree/dts/* Nicolas