Re: dtc: import latest upstream dtc

[Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>]

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

Gee, it sounds like you want firmware to suck.  Beating on the "firmware
sucks" drum is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, discouraging talented
programmers from doing firmware.  Who would want to work on something
that "everyone knows sucks"?