Re: RFC: Location for Device Tree Sources?

On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:20 PM, Grant Likely wrote:

On 8/1/06, Josh Boyer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 17:35 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 04:01:33PM -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 23:00 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

quoted

Mark A. Greer in his patch to port sandpoint to arch/powerpc put
sandpoint.dts under arch/powerpc/boot/dts/sandpoint.dts

I believe in his latest patches he removed this part. The device  
trees
were not included at all and he left this point open for  
discussion.

That's correct.

TBH, I think its wrong to keep them in the kernel source at all-- 
yes,
the same argument could be made for arch/powerpc/boot but that's  
been
settled.

Sorry, I have to disagree.  We're talking about device tree _source_
files here.  I believe they should be included in the kernel source.
Where that is, I don't have a particularly strong argument but they
should be included.

I have to second that opinion.  The device tree is absolutely integral
with the rest of the code/drivers needed to support a board.  I say
there are stronger arguments for keeping the dts files in the kernel
source than there are for the boot wrapper.

powerpc/boot/dts makes a lot of sense to me.

I like this location and agree that having them in tree makes sense.   
And putting them under boot isolates them from the kernel proper.

The reason I see to having them in tree is to ensure proper version  
compatibility.  This way there is no concern about which .dts version  
will work with which kernel.  In the future we can always pull them  
out when things are more stable.

- kumar