RFC: Location for Device Tree Sources?

Kumar Gala galak at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Aug 3 05:26:13 EST 2006

On Aug 2, 2006, at 2:03 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 11:49 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 12:21:37PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On 8/2/06, Mark A. Greer <mgreer at mvista.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:20:52PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>>> I have to second that opinion.  The device tree is absolutely  
>>>>> integral
>>>>> with the rest of the code/drivers needed to support a board.  I  
>>>>> say
>>>>> there are stronger arguments for keeping the dts files in the  
>>>>> kernel
>>>>> source than there are for the boot wrapper.
>>>> Well, the dts is no good to you without dtc so do we put dtc in the
>>>> kernel source tree too?
>>> I don't know; should we include gcc also?
>>> :p
>> Yep, my point.
>> I don't really have a problem with keeping known working dts files in
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts.  Perhaps a 1-1 match with files in
>> arch/powerpc/configs?
> I like that idea very much.  Actually that's what I thought were were
> talking about in the first place.
>> It would still be nice to have the dtc source, attach tool source,  
>> and,
>> if useful, a more exhaustive collection of dts files in one place.
> I also think that would be useful.

While useful, I doubt its likely to happen.  I forsee boards that  
aren't in the kernel tree having their dts live in their private  
worlds.  Also tools like mkimage that come from u-boot will probably  
still live with u-boot.

- kumar

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list