On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:42 AM, David Gibson
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 01:22:13PM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:02 PM, David Brown [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Does this mean that the dtc inside the kernel is going to be the
required tool to use to build device trees?  This change doesn't change
the DTB format, so it's as much of a concern, but was wondering if we're
intending to keep things compatible.

To be honest, I don't know enough to say either way.  I am using the
character literals in a device tree that is used to configure a
single firmware image for multiple boards.  That device tree is not
currently passed on to the kernel.

Your question makes me think that there are two device tree compilers that I
should be paying attention to, is that the case?  Or was it a more general
comment about diverging from a historic syntax for device tree
source files?

Oh, yes, forgot to mention that.

If you want to make extensions to dtc, you should do it to the
upstream dtc at git://git.jdl.com/software/dtc.git.  The in-kernel
version is just a irregularly updated snapshot of that one.

Yup, that's the repository I formed my patches against.  My
understanding was that this was the correct mailing list to send such
patches to.  But if there is another way to submit patches to the
upstream dtc repository please let me know.

Thanks,
    Anton

--
David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                               | _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson