On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 01/21/2013 03:38 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Slight correction: plan is to add a kernel sub package in 3.7 that >>>> includes dtbs. This won't go in the rc since the rc will be 3.6 based. >>> >>> >>> Why a kernel sub package? Why don't we add the dtb files for the >>> platforms that will work to the kernels that support it. We will >>> support half a dozen omap devices (and maybe include a few others that >>> might work) but there's no point shipping 100s of dtb files for >>> devices that we don't even enable the SoC for. >> >> >> I don't have a firm opinion on this except that we should make a sustainable >> decision. In my book all that really matters is that upgrading the kernel >> from 3.6 to 3.7 allows the systems we support to continue booting (and 3.7 >> to 3.8, etc). In my book that means the kernel provides the dtb (or >> requires a subpackage that contains the dtb). And the boot script knows to >> load the dtb if it's available. Wwe might as well do it the way we mean to >> keep on doing it, so picking good paths for these dtbs makes sense. There >> will presumably be quite a few of these files with kernel unification. > > I think then it should be as part of the kernel. We can make a better > decision and they are small so I don't see splitting it into another > file makes sense. The directory should be default like the firmwares > do but again we should be going with an upstream standard. Not sure why the list got removed but re-adding. Peter _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
