On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux >>>> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 08:01:07AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >>>>>> I'd prefer not to mix things in scripts/dtc that aren't the import of >>>>>> dtc (yes, we do have a few other things already, but they are at least >>>>>> scripts). Couldn't this go in include/dt-bindings/ instead? [...] >>>> Another idea. Could kbuild create all the symlinks at build time instead? >>> >>> I considered that, but given that we're talking about a few soft links >>> that we need to find a good home for, it seemed like overkill that >>> adds magic to the build process. Having somehting that is easily >>> discovered when looking around the source tree is a lot better. >>> >>> I looked around the tree for suitable homes for this directory of >>> links, and the least out-of-place I could find was under scripts/dtc. >>> You even have a script for uprevving the imported dtc sources, so it's >>> not like it's causing any problems from that point of view. But I do >>> agree that it's not ideal -- it was just the least bad option I could >>> find at the time. Better suggestions are welcome. >> >> Fair enough. Like I said, it was only a preference and certainly not >> unprecedented. I'll just get less receptive with each addition. :) > > I'm familiar with that feeling. :) > >> When and by whom do you propose merging this? > > Given that it crosses architectures but fixes my mistaken recursive > linking I was planning on either including it in arm-soc fixes or for > full visibility just send it as a patch to Linus. Mind giving me an > ack? Given what it fixes, arm-soc probably makes the most sense. Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Or, if you prefer to merge it that's fine with me too. I'd like to fix > the tree for people who are seeing the problems soon though. > >> The only other comment I would have is at some point, we're going to >> have overlays that aren't tied to any arch. Where are we going to put >> those? Maybe they are tied to some vendor which tends to have most >> stuff in $arch and we just continue this band-aid. Or we define some >> common location. I bring this up now only because both could use that >> location. > > Those are good questions. What kind of common overlays are you > anticipating? Things like fragments describing connectors, etc? Daughterboards on connectors is one. Another somewhat different case is non-probeable buses hanging off of probeable devices where the host system may not even be DT based. For example, GPIOs, I2C, UART, etc. devices behind a USB serial chip and standard USB connector. > Rule so far has been that the first arch to introduce something keeps > it (that's between arm/arm64): Mostly it's been arm64 referencing arm > contents so far. > > I guess we could introduce the concept of a common/ directory > somewhere. As you say, finding a good home for it isn't 100% obvious > today, and we should make sure ownership of the directory is clear > since we've seen things go badly when patches get merged through too > many paths on these files. Agreed. I'm happy for you to own that. ;) Rob
