On 14/09/2025 22:13, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 12:06:24 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski <k...@kernel.org> > wrote: > >>> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 +-- >>> Documentation/arch/m68k/kernel-options.rst | 9 ++------- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/arm/integratorap.dts | 2 +- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/arm/integratorcp.dts | 2 +- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-cmm.dts | 2 +- >>> .../boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-galaxy100.dts | 2 +- >>> .../arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-minipack.dts | 2 +- >>> .../arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-wedge100.dts | 2 +- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-wedge40.dts | 2 +- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-facebook-yamp.dts | 2 +- >>> .../boot/dts/aspeed/ast2600-facebook-netbmc-common.dtsi | 2 +- >> >> No, don't do that. DTS is always separate. > > Why can't DTS changes be carried in a different tree?
It must be carried in a different kernel tree and it must be ALWAYS a separate commit. Embedding it in the middle of this patchset and in the middle of some other commit breaks these two rules. If you asked why it cannot be carried by VFS (or by any non-SoC tree in general), it is because DTS is completely independent hardware description, so by keeping it on separate tree we enforce that rule of lack of dependency between DTS and any driver or core code. If there is a dependency here, then it would be a NAK, because there cannot be such - it would be a breach of contract for outside users (DTS is shared with other, non-Linux projects). Best regards, Krzysztof
