On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/11/2013 03:03 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> Actually I think device tree changes - if you mean changes to this platform's >> DTS/DTSI files, should go through the ARC arch tree. > > But current workflow is prone to broken bisectability - arch maintainers need to > make sure that the core/driver changes hit mainline before the actual dts/dtsi > files in arch/* No. This is *not* a bisectability problem, as it has been established that device trees and kernel code shall *not* be built and deployed together. Consider: - Just subsystem changes are merged: OK you can still take your DTS from somewhere and boot this kernel with it. - Just the arch/*/*.dts[i] changes are merged: OK these new DT nodes remain unused, presumably the system survives anyway? It only becomes a problem if you also start to apply patches deleting functionality that has been moved over to the device tree in the same merge window - don't do that. Take a sweep with the broomstick next time instead. >> As the idea is to eventually move the DTS stuff out of the kernel we should >> not try to couple these into the subsystem trees. > > IMHO putting the 2 parts in a patch series and routing via the same subsys tree > will not really couple them. I fail to see how u would use the commits in driver/* > (or not use the commits in arch/*) to do the proposed seperation of future. I don't understand this. First you say it is prone to broken bisectability, then you say it is not coupled? Isn't this the same thing? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
