Devicetree Maintenance in barebox

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.

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@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Hello.

Пятница,  7 февраля 2014, 8:13 +01:00 от Sascha Hauer [off-list ref]:

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@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

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@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:39:33AM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:

Hello.

Пятница,  7 февраля 2014, 8:13 +01:00 от Sascha Hauer [off-list ref]:

quoted

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 ...

Yeah, I also don't think this will happen soon. Even if it does I think
this won't solve all problems. We will still need barebox specific
adjustments.

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 {
  ...
};

I like the idea. One disadvantage may be that the structure in the dts
directory gets more unclear, but I guess we can't have everything.

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@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Пятница,  7 февраля 2014, 9:47 +01:00 от Sascha Hauer [off-list ref]:

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:39:33AM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:

quoted

Hello.

Пятница,  7 февраля 2014, 8:13 +01:00 от Sascha Hauer

[off-list ref]:

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

in a separate project, but most likely it will not be soon ...

Yeah, I also don't think this will happen soon. Even if it does I think
this won't solve all problems. We will still need barebox specific
adjustments.

quoted

At the moment, I want to suggest to use only non-modified DT files, i.e.

barebox

quoted

should use to build their own files, which include the original data from

the kernel.

quoted

Just for example:
# ls
bb_<board.dts>
<board.dts>

# cat bb_<board.dts>

#include "<board.dts>"
/* All overrides here */
chosen {
  ...
};

I like the idea. One disadvantage may be that the structure in the dts
directory gets more unclear, but I guess we can't have everything.

We can store our (bb-only) DTS content in a separate place
and keep kernel dts directory clean.

---
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:13:32AM +0100, 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.

As one of my todo items from last week's devicetree irc meeting, I've
now proposed just that:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.devicetree.compiler/14

Also, cross-posted to devicetree and devicetree-spec.

thx,

Jason.

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox