[PATCH 12/60] microblaze_v4: Generic dts file for platforms

[Stephen Neuendorffer]

In my opionion, we should only include dts files for reference designs, and it must be documented how to get the design that the dts corresponds to.
MD5 hashing might be one way to prevent people from getting the dts file wrong, however without some way of checking it automatically, I don't think
anyone will have the patience to checksum the design they have (even worse, with whitespace changes, the md5 sum will change, so this is pretty fragile.
Having a device tree in the kernel for documentation *shouldn't* be necessary, since noone should ever write their dts by hand. (right?)
Hence, I'd prefer to not put the dts file in the kernel at all, and but to automatically generate the dts and store it in the blockram of the design.
This inextricably associates the dts with the design.

As for the copyright, I haven't been able to find much information on whether or not generated files are even copyrightable.  One might argue that they
don't have sufficient 'creative value' to be copyrightable.  Or arguably, they are as copyrightable by the generator author as by the author or the .mhs file.
I admit in this case, I've followed the safe route by claiming a copyright, which at least at Xilinx has significant precedent.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: John Williams [mailto:john.williams at petalogix.com]
Sent: Sun 6/29/2008 5:02 PM
To: grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Cc: monstr at seznam.cz; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; arnd at arndb.de; linux-arch at vger.kernel.org; Stephen Neuendorffer; John Linn; matthew at wil.cx; will.newton at gmail.com; drepper at redhat.com; microblaze-uclinux at itee.uq.edu.au; linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org; vapier.adi at gmail.com; alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk; hpa at zytor.com; Michal Simek
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/60] microblaze_v4: Generic dts file for platforms
 
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:29 AM,  <monstr at seznam.cz> wrote:
>> From: Michal Simek <monstr at monstr.eu>

>>  arch/microblaze/platform/generic/system.dts |  300 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> Since this is a generated file, and entirely bitstream specific, does
> it make sense to include it in the kernel tree?  If it does, then is
> it produced from one of the Xilinx reference designs?  Can you add
> documentation to the header that specifies exactly which design
> version this .dts is for?

I think there's value in having a generic DTS as an example or
template, even if it doesn't correspond to any specific machine.
Agreed a comment block explaining this is valuable.

I'd almost oppose any attempt to include a standard DTS for things
like ML401 boards etc - they are just misleading.  Unless we do MD5
hashes on MHS files, and use them as the filenames, any attempt to
define a standard platform will just fail and confuse people.  Better
to show them how to generate the DTS for their system.

>> +/*
>> + * (C) Copyright 2007-2008 Xilinx, Inc.
>> + * (C) Copyright 2007-2008 Michal Simek
>> + *
>> + * Michal SIMEK <monstr at monstr.eu>
>
> If this is a generated file, then is this copyright notice even appropriate?

I agree.  I think Michal is just copying Xilinx's habit of putting
copyright headers in generated files, and it's one that we should stop
now.

Regards,

John




This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20080629/5adc2991/attachment.htm>