From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from jdl.com (jdl.com [208.123.74.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57EBADDEDB for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2007 02:04:58 +1000 (EST) To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] Add uli1575 pci-bridge sector to MPC8641HPCN dts file. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 02 Jun 2007 10:28:42 +0200." References: <1180720112.14219.62.camel@ld0161-tx32> <1180743742.19517.485.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:04:53 -0500 From: Jon Loeliger Message-Id: Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , So, like, the other day Segher Boessenkool mumbled: > > That, and I often get tired of seeing the same mistakes > over and over again. When I see a proposed tree that's > just too awful I don't really know where to start. That is a good point. I think there are several factors at work here. First and foremost, I am not an expert in this area; it is new to me. I am not afraid to say that I really need the guidance of an expert here. Second, perhaps there is lingering legacy crap in some of the early DTS files that should be systematically cleaned up. Many of them were written during a time when we were really first learning about the whole Device Tree. While they may have been there on some, say, Apple boards, it's all new for the FSL embedded parts. Cloned mistakes then likely contributed to the problems and should be fixed. Finally, perhaps our documentation on how some of the important fields should work or be derived is lacking and could be improved. Suggestions or patches down this line would likely be welcomed. > I also find the DTS source format a bit hard to read, > but maybe that's just me. I, at least, am open to suggestions that might improve it. Thanks, jdl