RFC: Location for Device Tree Sources?

Mark A. Greer mgreer at mvista.com
Thu Aug 3 04:22:26 EST 2006

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:12:29PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 17:35 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 04:01:33PM -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 23:00 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Mark A. Greer in his patch to port sandpoint to arch/powerpc put 
> > > > sandpoint.dts under arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sandpoint.dts 
> > > 
> > > I believe in his latest patches he removed this part. The device trees
> > > were not included at all and he left this point open for discussion.
> > 
> > That's correct.
> > 
> > TBH, I think its wrong to keep them in the kernel source at all--yes,
> > the same argument could be made for arch/powerpc/boot but that's been
> > settled.
> Sorry, I have to disagree.  We're talking about device tree _source_
> files here.  I believe they should be included in the kernel source.
> Where that is, I don't have a particularly strong argument but they
> should be included.

I would agree that its certainly _easier_ to keep them in the src tree.
The only good argument for why its _right_--that I've seen so far--is
by Kumar (i.e., so you have a dts that you know will boot on that kernel).

> > We already have dtc kept externally to the kernel source.  Why not
> > keep a single site where all things necessary to powerpc linux are kept?
> > It could house dtc, the dt attach tool, and all the dt source files.
> I think hosting the dtc, the dt attach tool, and pre-built dtb files for
> each platform in one spot would be a good idea.

Well, if you're going to keep prebuilt dtb files there, why wouldn't you
want the dts that makes that dtb to be in the same place?


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list