On 02/05/2013 10:56:59 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Stephen Warren
<[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
