On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:15 -0500, Stuart Yoder wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:14 -0500, Stuart Yoder wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:47 AM, <feng...@phytium.com.cn> wrote: >> >> > From: David Feng <feng...@phytium.com.cn> >> >> > >> >> > This patch provide u-boot with arm64 support. Currently, it works on >> >> > Foundation Model for armv8 or Fast Model for armv8. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: David Feng <feng...@phytium.com.cn> >> >> > --- >> >> > Changes for v3: >> >> > - rewrite cache.S and exception.S that partly originated from linux >> >> > kernel, >> >> > so the license should be ok. >> >> > >> >> > board/armltd/dts/vexpress64.dts | 215 >> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> >> Why is the device tree source in u-boot (instead of in the kernel)? >> >> Is this temporary? It >> >> looks like this device tree is just a copy from somewhere else. >> >> >> >> Would suggest removing this from this patch series and keep the dts >> >> maintained >> >> in the Linux kernel. >> > >> > U-Boot itself uses the device tree (not just to patch up for Linux) on >> > some targets. >> > >> > Even with the way PPC uses device trees, it doesn't really make sense to >> > keep them in the kernel given that they're meant to be OS-neutral, and >> > have ties to U-Boot in terms of what gets fixed up at runtime. >> >> It may not make sense, but that is where they are kept currently. > > For PPC.
$ find arch/arm/boot/dts | wc -l 425 $ find arch/powerpc/boot/dts | wc -l 315 There are also a handful of device trees under arch/arm64/boot/dts, including what looks like a vexpress board. >> It doesn't make sense to maintain 2 copies of a vexpress64.dts device tree >> in 2 different >> places...or to maintain 1 lone device tree in u-boot. > > Why does it not make sense for there to be one lone device tree in > U-Boot? It doesn't make sense to me to keep one device tree in u-boot and the rest in the kernel. I don't know where that vexpress64.dts came from, but I'm guessing it's a copy from the Linux kernel. > A device tree that is not used with U-Boot may not look the same, since > U-Boot is (at least on some platforms) responsible for filling in parts > of the tree, and (again on some platforms) for setting up the address > map. > >> Maybe we need a git repo for device trees that could be included >> in Linux, u-boot, and other things a submodule. > > Submodules can be a pain. If we don't use them for DTC, why would we > use them for this? Since they require extra commands, you'd be > modifying the workflow of everyone that builds U-Boot and/or Linux for > affected platforms. You shouldn't need device trees for building u-boot or the kernel. I don't think a couple of extra commands is that burdensome. I agree the DTS files really don't belong in the kernel, but there is currently no better repository that has been proposed. I'm not sure u-boot is a better place. Device trees should be independent of any particular bootloader or OS. Stuart _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
