On 02/05/2013 10:56:59 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org 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