From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:48:59 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] Tegra: fdt: Add/enhance sdhci (mmc) nodes for all T20 DT files In-Reply-To: (from sjg@chromium.org on Tue Feb 5 22:56:59 2013) References: <1360021735-13286-1-git-send-email-twarren@nvidia.com> <1360021735-13286-2-git-send-email-twarren@nvidia.com> <51116378.2040205@wwwdotorg.org> <51117064.6080806@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <1360612139.8517.5@snotra> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 02/05/2013 10:56:59 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Stephen Warren > wrote: > > Right now, I believe your/Simon's policy on DT is to only include > in the > > U-Boot .dts files what's actually needed for U-Boot. I've asked that > > this be done on a per-node basis rather than per-property basis in > order > > to reduce diffs. If you want to change that, and include nodes that > > U-Boot doesn't need, that'd be great and assist unification, but > then > > I'd recommend simply importing the current kernel .dts files as-is > > without any changes, rather than adding things piece-meal. > > I have to say that within reason I like the idea of bring in the DT > from the kernel as is, limited perhaps to the nodes that U-Boot > actually uses. > > A separate repo for the DT files seems like something that should > happen, but I have seen little progress on that front. Still, when it > happens, it would be nice it we could drop U-Boot's files and just use > the kernel's. That will be a lot easier if we head in that direction > now. I think any device tree that makes assumptions about what U-Boot will be fixing up, or even what addresses U-Boot will configure devices at, belongs in the U-Boot tree. Keeping such trees in Linux has been awkward so far, especially when a change gets made to such an assumption, or when U-Boot isn't the only supported firmware. -Scott