On 08:13 Fri 07 Feb , Sascha Hauer wrote: > 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. push the kernel to split the tree as a sub module at least so other project can import it Best Regards, J. > > Sascha > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | > Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | > > _______________________________________________ > barebox mailing list > barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
