Re: Devicetree Maintenance in barebox

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>]

On 08:13 Fri 07 Feb     , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> It's becoming more obvious that devicetree maintenance is painful
> because we have to sync them to the kernel regularly. My hope was that
> this would get simpler once the devicetrees get their own repository
> outside the kernel, but it seems that won't happen anytime soon.
> 
> So my current idea to continue with barebox devicetrees is:
> 
> - Maintain a kernel branch which has all devicetree changes we need in
>   barebox in a clean step-by-step series
> - rebase this branch regularly on the newer kernel
> - Copy the resulting devicetrees to barebox
> 
> The upside is that we have up to date devicetrees in barebox without
> having to resync them by hand on a per SoC basis.  Of course this also
> means that we lose the devicetree history and breakage may be introduced
> with some huge commits saying "Update devicetrees to Linux-3.x".
> 
> Any better ideas? I think we have to do something.

push the kernel to split the tree as a sub module at least

so other project can import it

Best Regards,
J.
> 
> Sascha
> 
> -- 
> Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
> Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
> 
> _______________________________________________
> barebox mailing list
> barebox@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox