On Oct 16, 2007, at 12:39 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Kumar Gala writes: > >> Dare I ask why we are including dtc in the kernel source tree? We >> don't really have precedence for this and there are users outside of >> linux for dtc. > > You must have missed the thread where various people where complaining > about how powerpc is the only architecture where they can't build > kernels without some external tool that they don't have, etc., etc.
I must have missed this thread. > We thought about shipping compiled DTBs for various platforms, but the > problem there is that they can't be updated with a patch, so whoever > commits a patch to the relevant .dts would have to remember to run dtc > and commit the updated .dtb as well, which seems a bit error-prone. agreed, would seem .S would have been a better choice than .dtb, but I agree the keeping a .dts and .S form insync would be a bit of a pain. > In the end, dtc isn't all that much code. We already have several > other programs that run on the host in the process of making a zImage, > such as wrapper, hack-coff, and addnote, not to mention the various C > programs that are part of Kbuild, and unifdef, kallsyms, etc. > > So I think there definitely is a precedent for including dtc. Just out of interest who's complaining? We don't include mkimage for u-boot related builds and I haven't seen any gripes related to that. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
