On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 10:01:03AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 7:17 AM Guo Ren <ren_guo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 04:16:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 2:08 PM Guo Ren <ren_guo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/csky/boot/dts/qemu.dts b/arch/csky/boot/dts/qemu.dts
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000..d36e4cd
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/arch/csky/boot/dts/qemu.dts
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
> > > > +/dts-v1/;
> > > > +/ {
> > > > + compatible = "csky,qemu";
> > > > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > > > + #size-cells = <1>;
> > > > + interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
> > >
> > > Ideally, qemu would supply a dtb file that matches the current configuration,
> > > as we do for instance on the ARM 'virt' machine. This allows you
> > > much more flexibility in running all kinds of options, as well as extending
> > > qemu later with new features.
> > So, I should remove qemu.dts in next version patch?
>
> It's up to you really. If you won't have a version of qemu that can do this
> by itself, it may make sense to keep it around for a while. You might
> want to include the version of your current qemu port is based on
> qemu-2.x but not upstream, you could include a qemu-2.x.dts file
> here, and have the future 3.x port provide its own.
Ok, thx for the tips.
Guo Ren
