In my opionion, we should only include dts files for reference designs, and it must be documented how to get the design that the dts corresponds to. MD5 hashing might be one way to prevent people from getting the dts file wrong, however without some way of checking it automatically, I don't think anyone will have the patience to checksum the design they have (even worse, with whitespace changes, the md5 sum will change, so this is pretty fragile. Having a device tree in the kernel for documentation *shouldn't* be necessary, since noone should ever write their dts by hand. (right?) Hence, I'd prefer to not put the dts file in the kernel at all, and but to automatically generate the dts and store it in the blockram of the design. This inextricably associates the dts with the design.
As for the copyright, I haven't been able to find much information on whether or not generated files are even copyrightable. One might argue that they don't have sufficient 'creative value' to be copyrightable. Or arguably, they are as copyrightable by the generator author as by the author or the .mhs file. I admit in this case, I've followed the safe route by claiming a copyright, which at least at Xilinx has significant precedent. Steve -----Original Message----- From: John Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 6/29/2008 5:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Stephen Neuendorffer; John Linn; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michal Simek Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/60] microblaze_v4: Generic dts file for platforms On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:29 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Michal Simek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> arch/microblaze/platform/generic/system.dts | 300 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Since this is a generated file, and entirely bitstream specific, does > it make sense to include it in the kernel tree? If it does, then is > it produced from one of the Xilinx reference designs? Can you add > documentation to the header that specifies exactly which design > version this .dts is for? I think there's value in having a generic DTS as an example or template, even if it doesn't correspond to any specific machine. Agreed a comment block explaining this is valuable. I'd almost oppose any attempt to include a standard DTS for things like ML401 boards etc - they are just misleading. Unless we do MD5 hashes on MHS files, and use them as the filenames, any attempt to define a standard platform will just fail and confuse people. Better to show them how to generate the DTS for their system. >> +/* >> + * (C) Copyright 2007-2008 Xilinx, Inc. >> + * (C) Copyright 2007-2008 Michal Simek >> + * >> + * Michal SIMEK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If this is a generated file, then is this copyright notice even appropriate? I agree. I think Michal is just copying Xilinx's habit of putting copyright headers in generated files, and it's one that we should stop now. Regards, John This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
