Hi Rob, On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 07:51:26PM +0000, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Moritz Fischer <mdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 05:09:17PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:46:26AM -0700, Moritz Fischer wrote: > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > as discussed in Prague last week, here's my follow up. > >> > A bit of background again as refresher: Some time ago I submitted a > >> > patchset adding dts for some of upcoming boards ([1]). > >> > Arguments brought up against merging it were that we have too many Zynq > >> > based boards already in tree. > > First I've seen this. Are the revX versions long lived? I could see > some pushback on having multiple revisions, but adding the board > itself seems silly. Well, RevC were shipped to customer X and are deployed in the field, revD has some fixes, customers have them, RevE might have some more fixes, meanwhile I need to support all of them. Note how I did not send a Rev1, which is the one no customer will ever get hands on. > > >> > During the Devicetree Workshop we had a brief discussion and most people > >> > in the room seemed to be ok with adding the boards, someone suggested > >> > (Arnd?) to add vendor subdirectories like in arm64, i.e. something > >> > like: > >> > > >> > arch/arm/boot/dts/xilinx/ni/<board> > >> > > >> > where Xilinx would be the SoC vendor and NI the integrator. > >> > >> I utterly hate deep levels of directories, but I think the ARM64 > >> solution where we /generally/ have one level of additional > >> directories under dts is a good compromise. With 1640 files in > >> arch/arm/boot/dts, it does need splitting up. > > Agreed. > > >> I'm not sure that splitting it by "integrator" is a good idea > >> for a single level of directory - using the SoC, SoC group, or > >> SoC manufacturer is better. It needs to be a balance between > >> number of subdirectories and number of files in the subdirectory, > >> so using guidance and not setting it as a hard and fast rule > >> makes sense too. What is right for one SoC group may not be > >> right for another group of SoCs. > > > > Ok so in our case that would be: > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-*.dts -> arch/arm/boot/dts/xilinx > > Yes. I would like the rule to be "use the SoC vendor prefix". > Unfortunately, we haven't quite followed that for arm64 with things > like exynos and freescale. Ok, let's do this then. > > > or: > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-*.dts -> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq > > No. > > >> > >> What I think we should avoid is having to needlessly descend into > >> all of the subdirectories, so it needs to be based around the > >> Kconfig symbols we're already using. > > > > So as example only add the arch/arm/boot/dts/xilinx subdirectory based on > > CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQ? > > No. Look at arch/arm64/boot/dts/Makefile and you will see why that doesn't work. Ok, will take a look. > > If this can be entirely scripted, I would suggest writing the script > and we provide the script to Linus to run just before an -rc1 (or > arm-soc folks can run it as long as all dts changes go thru their > tree). Also, pay attention that we don't break the > devicetree-rebasing.git tree. Alright, let me see if I can make this work, > > Rob Thanks for your feedback, Moritz -- 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
