Merge dtc

[Kumar Gala]

On Oct 16, 2007, at 12:39 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:

> Kumar Gala writes:
>
>> Dare I ask why we are including dtc in the kernel source tree?  We
>> don't really have precedence for this and there are users outside of
>> linux for dtc.
>
> You must have missed the thread where various people where complaining
> about how powerpc is the only architecture where they can't build
> kernels without some external tool that they don't have, etc., etc.

I must have missed this thread.

> We thought about shipping compiled DTBs for various platforms, but the
> problem there is that they can't be updated with a patch, so whoever
> commits a patch to the relevant .dts would have to remember to run dtc
> and commit the updated .dtb as well, which seems a bit error-prone.

agreed, would seem .S would have been a better choice than .dtb, but  
I agree the keeping a .dts and .S form insync would be a bit of a pain.

> In the end, dtc isn't all that much code.  We already have several
> other programs that run on the host in the process of making a zImage,
> such as wrapper, hack-coff, and addnote, not to mention the various C
> programs that are part of Kbuild, and unifdef, kallsyms, etc.
>
> So I think there definitely is a precedent for including dtc.

Just out of interest who's complaining?  We don't include mkimage for  
u-boot related builds and I haven't seen any gripes related to that.

- k