On 30.07.2008 01:53, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: >> On 29.07.2008 22:10, ron minnich wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Stefan Reinauer >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Peter Stuge wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, I argued strongly for this when they first appeared and even >>>>> sent a patch. The problem is that the filenames are tied hard into >>>>> the struct names generated by dtc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hm. I definitely want to support your idea here then. >>>> >>>> Adding .dts to the filename is about as hard as not doing that. >>>> Also, in 2 >>>> out of 3 dts files I see struct names. >>>> >> >> And what about files which are named dts right now? Do we call them >> dts.dts (ugly) or .dts (hidden file)? Stripping a given file suffix in >> dtc before creating the struct name is easy. >> > Read my initial proposal.
That proposal said: > To make clear what those files are, we should rename them... > > dts -> mainboard.dts > ide -> ide.dts > apic -> apic.dts I can either take your words literally ( southbridge/amd/cs5536/dts becomes southbridge/amd/cs5536/mainboard.dts ) or I take their intent and conclude the initial proposal was incomplete. >>>> If we'd really autocreate something, we should drop that behavior. >>>> >> >> struct name autocreation is a feature I really like. >> > Absolutely. "That behavior" meant mentioning the struct name manually > in the dts files. Indeed. I'll take a look at those files in the next few months. I'd be happy if someone could tackle this before. >>> oh no! it's harder! we blew it! >>> >> >> I'd like to disagree. I still haven't fully understood the v2 device >> tree, while the v3 device tree seems obvious and simple to me. > On a code level beyound the dts they're 100% the same. Now go compare > a mainboard Config.lb (minus the makefile stuff) to the scattered dts > mentioning struct names for components etc etc. It is really much more > complex than in v2. Yet, it does not have more features. > >> v3 has a few perceived problems and a few real problems. The problem is >> that everybody has his own idea about which problems are real. I'm not >> claiming that my version of the story is the absolute truth(tm) > > What exactly are you trying to say? It's like flashrom. Agreeing on features and roadmap is probably more difficult than coding stuff up. > What is your version of the story anyways? The v2 config files are completely unreadable. In v3, the situation is a lot better. Maybe not optimal, but orders of magnitude better than v2. One thing I see as a problem in both versions is how I can specify different settings for each instance of a chip appearing multiple times on a board. (I may be misinterpreting struct name generation...) Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
