Hello.
Пятница, 7 февраля 2014, 8:13 +01:00 от Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi All,
>
> It's becoming more obvious that devicetree maintenance is painful
> because we have to sync them to the kernel regularly. My hope was that
> this would get simpler once the devicetrees get their own repository
> outside the kernel, but it seems that won't happen anytime soon.
>
> So my current idea to continue with barebox devicetrees is:
>
> - Maintain a kernel branch which has all devicetree changes we need in
> barebox in a clean step-by-step series
> - rebase this branch regularly on the newer kernel
> - Copy the resulting devicetrees to barebox
>
> The upside is that we have up to date devicetrees in barebox without
> having to resync them by hand on a per SoC basis. Of course this also
> means that we lose the devicetree history and breakage may be introduced
> with some huge commits saying "Update devicetrees to Linux-3.x".
>
> Any better ideas? I think we have to do something.
As far as I know, in the community have any thoughts on the transfer of the DT data
in a separate project, but most likely it will not be soon ...
At the moment, I want to suggest to use only non-modified DT files, i.e. barebox
should use to build their own files, which include the original data from the kernel.
Just for example:
# ls
bb_<board.dts>
<board.dts>
# cat bb_<board.dts>
#include "<board.dts>"
/* All overrides here */
chosen {
...
};
---
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
