+Rob Herring Hi David and Rob, On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 23:31, David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 02:43:44PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 at 21:10, David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 03:43:42PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Note: This was last sent 6 years ago. It really belongs upstream and I > > > > believe it is useful functionality for libfdt, so I am trying again. > > > > Please take a fresh look at this. It is cut back from the previous series. > > > > If accepted we can expand the feature set piece by piece from here. > > > > > > Sorry it's taken me so long to look at this. Again. I can't dispute > > > that it's useful for certain use cases. But as for belonging > > > upstream... > > > > > > This series adds quite a lot of conceptual complexity. It introduces > > > a new data structure, new state structures, a entirely new mode of > > > working with a tree and a bunch of configuration parameter types on > > > top of the new entry points and new tool. I still find the semantics > > > of the different criteria for inclusion/exclusion from a region pretty > > > bewildering. > > > > It is sufficient to achieve its purpose, but I don't think it is any > > more complex than that. > > I don't disagree, but that still ends up being quite complex. > > > > That makes me pretty disinclined to add this to the scope of > > > maintenance for libfdt. As you've probably noticed, I'm already > > > struggling to keep on top of maintenance for the existing libfdt > > > interfaces. AFAICT everything here can be implemented fairly > > > naturally in terms of libfdt's existing public interface. so I'm not > > > really seeing a compelling reason for this to be merged into libfdt, > > > rather than being its own separate library that depends on libfdt. > > > > Are you suggesting: > > > > 1. that libfdt should move to a new maintainer > > 2. that you would accept these patches if someone else maintained them > > within the libfdt tree > > 3. that we set up a separate tree to fork libfdt, with these changes in > > 4. that we put these changes in a separate tree? > > Right now (4) is what I'm suggesting. Or to be more precise, creating > a new repo with "libfdtrange" or whatever, that depends on libfdt. > > (1) and/or (2) are potentially worthy of further discussion. (3) is > just a bad idea, IMO. Where are things going with device tree validation in terms of source-code location? Is it likely there might be a separate tree for that, which could perhaps hold other libfdt dependent things? Regards, Simon
