From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from benson.vm.bytemark.co.uk ([212.110.190.137]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WCp9N-0000QD-A9 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:35:46 +0000 Message-ID: <1392032117.5117.46.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> From: Ian Campbell Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:35:17 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <20140207071332.GE16215@pengutronix.de> <20140207141028.GT8533@titan.lakedaemon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Devicetree Maintenance in barebox To: Jon Loeliger Cc: Grant Likely , barebox@lists.infradead.org, Jason Cooper , devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2014-02-09 at 11:58 -0600, Jon Loeliger wrote: > > Hi Sascha, > > > > + Grant Likely, Ian Campbell, devicetree ML > > > > Also, In the DT meeting earlier this week, Grant Likely said he has the > > request in to create a separate mailinglist for collaboration between > > the different devicetree users (BSD, Linux, etc). > > ... > > > I think the proper solution will percolate out of the first > > cross-project discussions on the new ML. > > ... > > > Definitely fodder for the new ML. > > > > Grant, can you please add Sascha to the list of folks to notify when > > the new ML is ready? > > I don't think there needs to be a different mailing list > in order to combine or discuss other OS's use of the device > tree compiler. The DTC is OS and Use-agnostic. Discussions > of DTC needs for FreeBSD can happen right here as the orginal > purpose of this list was DTC discussion. > > Are you, and Grant(?), suggesting that a separate list > should be created for FreeBSD use of DTS-file contents? > Or that DTS-file-content related discussions should be > separated from DTC discussions? The latter. See http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg19209.html . The issue is the enormous volume of Linux specific stuff which is too much of a firehose to sensibly suggest non-Linux people to subscribe too. > > > imho, the goal is to not have any project tied to a specific version > > of the devicetree. > > > > iow, we don't break backwards compatibility in the > > devicetrees, and projects should revert to default behavior if new dt > > parameters are missing. This means Linux and BSD shouldn't need to keep > > a current copy of the devicetree in their trees. However, building the > > bootloader is a different animal. It needs to provide the dt blob... > > The devicetree source file format hasn't changed in years. > Yes, it is enhanced, but compatibly. Or do you mean the > contents of the DTB for some specific platform? > > Thanks, > jdl > _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox