On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:29 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Michal Simek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> arch/microblaze/platform/generic/system.dts | 300 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Since this is a generated file, and entirely bitstream specific, does > it make sense to include it in the kernel tree? If it does, then is > it produced from one of the Xilinx reference designs? Can you add > documentation to the header that specifies exactly which design > version this .dts is for? I think there's value in having a generic DTS as an example or template, even if it doesn't correspond to any specific machine. Agreed a comment block explaining this is valuable. I'd almost oppose any attempt to include a standard DTS for things like ML401 boards etc - they are just misleading. Unless we do MD5 hashes on MHS files, and use them as the filenames, any attempt to define a standard platform will just fail and confuse people. Better to show them how to generate the DTS for their system. >> +/* >> + * (C) Copyright 2007-2008 Xilinx, Inc. >> + * (C) Copyright 2007-2008 Michal Simek >> + * >> + * Michal SIMEK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If this is a generated file, then is this copyright notice even appropriate? I agree. I think Michal is just copying Xilinx's habit of putting copyright headers in generated files, and it's one that we should stop now. Regards, John _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
