Hi Mark,

On 23/4/25 12:18, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 23/04/2025 11:02, BALATON Zoltan wrote:

Simple series doing what the subject says.

v2:
- Added changes to qemu.nsi (Philippe)
- Changed order of enum to keep it sorted. This changes value of
existing define but the value is not relevant, always used by name.

BALATON Zoltan (2):
   system/datadir: Add new type constant for DTB files
   pc-bios: Move device tree files in their own subdir

  MAINTAINERS                                |   2 +-
  hw/microblaze/boot.c                       |   2 +-
  hw/ppc/ppc440_bamboo.c                     |   2 +-
  hw/ppc/sam460ex.c                          |   2 +-
  hw/ppc/virtex_ml507.c                      |   2 +-
  include/qemu/datadir.h                     |  11 +++++++---
  pc-bios/{ => dtb}/bamboo.dtb               | Bin
  pc-bios/{ => dtb}/bamboo.dts               |   0
  pc-bios/{ => dtb}/canyonlands.dtb          | Bin
  pc-bios/{ => dtb}/canyonlands.dts          |   0
  pc-bios/dtb/meson.build                    |  23 +++++++++++++++++++++
  pc-bios/{ => dtb}/petalogix-ml605.dtb      | Bin
  pc-bios/{ => dtb}/petalogix-ml605.dts      |   0
  pc-bios/{ => dtb}/petalogix-s3adsp1800.dtb | Bin
  pc-bios/{ => dtb}/petalogix-s3adsp1800.dts |   0
  pc-bios/meson.build                        |  23 +--------------------
  qemu.nsi                                   |   2 +-
  system/datadir.c                           |   5 ++++-
  18 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
  rename pc-bios/{ => dtb}/bamboo.dtb (100%)
  rename pc-bios/{ => dtb}/bamboo.dts (100%)
  rename pc-bios/{ => dtb}/canyonlands.dtb (100%)
  rename pc-bios/{ => dtb}/canyonlands.dts (100%)
  create mode 100644 pc-bios/dtb/meson.build
  rename pc-bios/{ => dtb}/petalogix-ml605.dtb (100%)
  rename pc-bios/{ => dtb}/petalogix-ml605.dts (100%)
  rename pc-bios/{ => dtb}/petalogix-s3adsp1800.dtb (100%)
  rename pc-bios/{ => dtb}/petalogix-s3adsp1800.dts (100%)

In previous discussions we've had around what to do with pc-bios, wasn't the consensus that we should aim towards dividing up the directory on a per-target basis? I'm wondering if this is going in right direction, as I can certainly see that a per-target split would be more useful to packagers.

pc-bios/ is already a mess, packagers usually take it as a whole. This
series isn't making the current situation worse.

I don't recall a per-target split discussion, but one moving firmware
blobs out of tree in a more adapted storage like git-lfs.

My 2 cents...

Regards,

Phil.

Reply via email to