From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com (gateway-1237.mvista.com [63.81.120.158]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BAA67BDB for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 04:20:42 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:24:15 -0700 From: "Mark A. Greer" To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: RFC: Location for Device Tree Sources? Message-ID: <20060802182415.GJ17652@mag.az.mvista.com> References: <1154464346.19994.4.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com> <1154466094.11069.6.camel@localhost> <20060802003504.GA20439@mag.az.mvista.com> <1154481150.2676.3.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <528646bc0608012020l11690cf7wbb7d93e6ba6eae90@mail.gmail.com> <33AC4A3A-876A-4AF9-B851-928EE80A9D80@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <33AC4A3A-876A-4AF9-B851-928EE80A9D80@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" , Guennadi Liakhovetski List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:35:55AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:20 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > > > On 8/1/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 17:35 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 04:01:33PM -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 23:00 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Mark A. Greer in his patch to port sandpoint to arch/powerpc put > >>>>> sandpoint.dts under arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sandpoint.dts > >>>> > >>>> I believe in his latest patches he removed this part. The device > >>>> trees > >>>> were not included at all and he left this point open for > >>>> discussion. > >>> > >>> That's correct. > >>> > >>> TBH, I think its wrong to keep them in the kernel source at all-- > >>> yes, > >>> the same argument could be made for arch/powerpc/boot but that's > >>> been > >>> settled. > >> > >> Sorry, I have to disagree. We're talking about device tree _source_ > >> files here. I believe they should be included in the kernel source. > >> Where that is, I don't have a particularly strong argument but they > >> should be included. > > > > I have to second that opinion. The device tree is absolutely integral > > with the rest of the code/drivers needed to support a board. I say > > there are stronger arguments for keeping the dts files in the kernel > > source than there are for the boot wrapper. > > > > powerpc/boot/dts makes a lot of sense to me. > > I like this location and agree that having them in tree makes sense. > And putting them under boot isolates them from the kernel proper. > > The reason I see to having them in tree is to ensure proper version > compatibility. This way there is no concern about which .dts version > will work with which kernel. In the future we can always pull them > out when things are more stable. Hmm, that is a good reason... Mark