On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:11 PM, David Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24 2011, Anton Staaf wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:02 PM, David Brown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Does this mean that the dtc inside the kernel is going to be the >> required tool to use to build device trees? This change doesn't change >> the DTB format, so it's as much of a concern, but was wondering if we're >> intending to keep things compatible. >> >> >> To be honest, I don't know enough to say either way. I am using the >> character >> literals in a device tree that is used to configure a single firmware image >> for >> multiple boards. That device tree is not currently passed on to the kernel. >> >> Your question makes me think that there are two device tree compilers that I >> should be paying attention to, is that the case? Or was it a more general >> comment about diverging from a historic syntax for device tree source files? > > Both, really. There is a dtc at > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/dtc.git but it seems > older than the one in the kernel.
The kernel one is simply a copy of the upstream dtc. You should craft your patches against: git://git.jdl.com/software/dtc.git > > Also, the dts form is defined in the ePAPR documents, and this would be > a (minor) divergence from that. dts is not set in stone, and is certainly subject to enhancements providing it doesn't break existing users. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
