Hi Simon, > > > > >
[...] > > > > > Changes in v6: > > > > > - Fix description of OF_BOARD so it refers just to the current state > > > > > - Explain that the 'two devicetrees' refers to two *control* > > > > > devicetrees > > > > > - Expand the commit message based on comments > > > > > - Expand the commit message based on comments > > > > > > > > You haven’t addressed any concerns expressed on the mailing list.so I am > > > > not in favor of this new version either. > > > > If you make a version without « fake DTs » as you name them, there are > > > > good > > > > advances in the documentation and other areas that would be better in > > > > mainline…. > > > > If I am the only one thinking this way and the patch can be accepted, I > > > > would love there is a warning in capital letters at the top of the DTS > > > > fake > > > > files that explains the intent of this fake DT, the possible outcomes of > > > > not using the one provided by the platform and the right way of dealing > > > > with DTs for the platform. > > > > > > This is the part that I too am still unhappy about. I do not want > > > reference or fake or whatever device trees in the U-Boot source tree. > > > We should be able to _remove_ the ones we have, that are not required, > > > with doc/board/...rst explaining how to get / view one. Not adding > > > more. > > > > So this is a key point for me and the reason I completely disagree > > with this approach. This proposal is working in the *exact* opposite > > direction and we'll never be able to get rid of device trees from > > U-Boot, even if at some point they move out of the kernel to a > > 'common' repo'. I'll just repeat what I've been saying since v1. > > Personally I'd be way happier if we could figure out were the specific > > U-Boot config nodes are needed and when are they needed. Based on > > what we figure out we could, pick up the device tree from a previous > > state bootloader and fix it up with our special nodes before we start > > using it, using internal DTS files (compiled to .dtbos or similar) > > that indeed belong in the u-boot tree. > > Eh? If the device tree files are actually common then there should be > a single source. If U-Boot has a copy then it should be identical. > > The special node thing makes no sense for U-Boot. We just need to > upstream our bindings and I am working on that. Yea we discussed this on v5. If the device bindings are upstreamed things gets substantially easier. But that's a big if. > > Are the device tree files moving out of Linux? There was an effort from Linaro and iirc we tried to move a few and see how things would work out, but there's nothing official. Regards /Ilias
