Re: Meeting notes: Planning around splitting devicetree data out of the Linux tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 2:46 PM Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:34 PM Rob Herring <Rob.Herring@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/26/19 12:07 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > A large group of us met yesterday at Linaro Connect in San Diego to
> > > discuss this topic. I hope most people are on one of the two the
> > > mailing lists here already - please forward if you think somebody is
> > > not and should see this.
>
> Could have been cool to be cc:d. Luckily I don't filter the mailing
> list out of my inbox today so I spotted it.

Sorry, was mainly just trying to get it to *some* public list...

[...]

> > > So we do all arches, or just arm? Start with arm, iron out the
> > > kinks. Once we're happy, move risc-v, ppc, etc. as/when their
> > > maintainers care. There are a number of quiet arches with very few dts
> > > files, as seen already. The SoC maintainers and Rob will clearly end
> > > up maintaining the new tree to start with.
> >
> > Last we talked Arnd was not on board with maintaining this. Don't know
> > about Olof.
> >
> > And let's not kid ourselves, there is no 'to start with' here.
>
> Whomever wants to split DTS files out of the kernel tree, gets to
> maintain it. That includes the usual maintainership responsibilities
> of making sure the quality of the contributions are at the expected
> level, etc.
>
> My main opinion remains unchanged though -- given the way development
> happens today, we should have at least a superset DT target in the
> kernel -- usually this is a development/eval board for an SoC.
> Derivative/product platforms based on that could live in an external
> repo maintained elsewhere. But splitting up main DT and the
> kernel/driver side today, including completely separate review/merge
> paths would make for a more complicated setup, not a simpler one.
>
> Today we often rely on subsystem/driver maintainers to review and
> chime in on bindings, header files, etc. If we do completely different
> flows for the two efforts, it'll add significant overhead for
> contributors and maintainers.

Those reviews on bindings are a key sticking point for me. I don't see
that getting transferred out of the kernel. Sure, maybe some can be
coaxed into signing up to review those subsystem bindings in a new
repository, but once the patches don't go thru their tree they'll
eventually stop paying attention.

Rob



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photos]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]

  Powered by Linux