From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from 12.mo1.mail-out.ovh.net ([87.98.162.229] helo=mo1.mail-out.ovh.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WBpZE-0002jc-To for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:50:21 +0000 Received: from mail421.ha.ovh.net (b9.ovh.net [213.186.33.59]) by mo1.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C97C4FFC16C for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:56:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:51:14 +0100 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Message-ID: <20140207175114.GL9671@ns203013.ovh.net> References: <20140207071332.GE16215@pengutronix.de> <20140207141028.GT8533@titan.lakedaemon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140207141028.GT8533@titan.lakedaemon.net> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Devicetree Maintenance in barebox To: Jason Cooper Cc: Grant Likely , barebox@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Ian Campbell On 09:10 Fri 07 Feb , Jason Cooper wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > + Grant Likely, Ian Campbell, devicetree ML > > This discussion started on the barebox bootloader mailinglist > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:13:32AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > 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. > > hmm. Ian Campbell has a tree he is working on: > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/ianc/device-tree-rebasing.git > > Also, In the DT meeting earlier this week, Grant Likely said he has the > request in to create a separate mailinglist for collaboration between > the different devicetree users (BSD, Linux, etc). > > > 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. > > I think the proper solution will percolate out of the first > cross-project discussions on the new ML. > > imho, the goal is to not have any project tied to a specific version of > the devicetree. iow, we don't break backwards compatibility in the > devicetrees, and projects should revert to default behavior if new dt > parameters are missing. This means Linux and BSD shouldn't need to keep > a current copy of the devicetree in their trees. However, building the > bootloader is a different animal. It needs to provide the dt blob... > > Definitely fodder for the new ML. > > Grant, can you please add Sascha to the list of folks to notify when the > new ML is ready? Yes we do need to split the DT ASAP Best Regards, J. > > thx, > > Jason. > > _______________________________________________ > 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