On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 03:56:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Saturday 23 August 2014, Olof Johansson wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:10:23PM -0700, Andrew Bresticker wrote: >> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > On Aug 21, 2014 3:05 PM, "Andrew Bresticker" <abrestic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > To be consistent with other architectures and to avoid unnecessary >> > > > > makefile duplication, move all MIPS device-trees to arch/mips/boot/dts >> > > > > and build them with a common makefile. >> > > > >> > > > I recall reading that the ARM organization for DTS files was a bit unfortunate >> > > > and should have been something like: >> > > > >> > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/<vendor>/ >> > > > >> > > > Is this something we should do for the MIPS and update the other architectures >> > > > to follow that scheme? >> > > >> > > I recall reading that as well and that it would be adopted for ARM64, >> > > but that hasn't seemed to have happened. Perhaps Olof (CC'ed) will no >> > > more. >> > >> > Yeah, I highly recommend having a directory per vendor. We didn't on ARM, >> > and the amount of files in that directory is becoming pretty >> > insane. Moving to a subdirectory structure later gets messy which is >> > why we've been holding off on it. >> >> Another argument is that we plan to actually move all the dts files out of >> the kernel into a separate project in the future. We really don't want to >> have the churn of moving all the files now when they get deleted in one >> of the next merge windows. > > To be honest, I don't see that happening within the forseeable > future. Some of us maintainers like talking about this, but everyone who > actually develops have nightmares about this scenario. Nobody knows how > it'll be done without causing some real serious impact on productivity. > >> I don't know if we talked about whether that move should be done for >> all architectures at the same time. If that is the plan, I think it >> would be best to not move the MIPS files at all but also wait until >> they can get removed from the kernel tree. > > If MIPS can restructure now before things start growing, then I'd really > recommend that they do so and not hold off waiting on some event that > might never happen. :) Yes, I agree on both points. Rob
