Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1211692 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v5] dtb: Create a common home for cross-architecture dtsi files.

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v5] dtb: Create a common home for cross-architecture dtsi files. Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> - 2015-08-24 01:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v5] dtb: Create a common home for cross-architecture dtsi files. Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 01:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v5] dtb: Create a common home for cross-architecture dtsi files. Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> - 2015-08-24 02:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v5] dtb: Create a common home for cross-architecture dtsi files. Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 23:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v5] dtb: Create a common home for cross-architecture dtsi files. Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> - 2015-08-25 00:30 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v5] dtb: Create a common home for cross-architecture  dtsi files. Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> - 2015-09-01 10:50 +0200

#1211692 — Re: [PATCH v5] dtb: Create a common home for cross-architecture dtsi files.

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
> +arm-soc
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 17:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> Commit 9ccd608070b6 ("arm64: dts: add device tree for ARM SMM-A53x2 on
>>> LogicTile Express 20MG") added a new dts file to arch/arm64 which
>>> included "../../../../arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2m-rs1.dtsi", i.e. a
>>> .dtsi supplied by arch/arm.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this causes some issues for the split device tree
>>> repository[0], since things get moved around there. In that context
>>> the new .dts ends up at src/arm64/arm/vexpress-v2f-1xv7-ca53x2.dts
>>> while the include is at src/arm/vexpress-v2m-rs1.dtsi.
>>
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> Do you think there is any chance of getting this into 4.2-rc$NEXT or shall
>> we wait until 4.3? I'm assuming this should go via the DT tree, but maybe
>> it should go via an ARM tree?
>
> I was assuming this would go thru the arm-soc tree which is why I
> acked it. It is getting a bit late for 4.2 at this point, but I guess
> the standalone tree remains broken for these platforms until this is
> done. Probably not such a big deal in grand scheme of things.

I'm cc:d in the far tail of a thread, so I'll just comment here
instead of further up:

I'm not a fan at all of creating kernel/dts/<arch>/*, at least if
there's expected to be contents in there.

We don't have include/linux/asm-<arch>/ in the common tree either.
Let's not create that for dts.

So, while I'm all for a prefix-based sharing of DTSI files, I don't
want them to go in a common kernel/dts directory.

Besides sharing some snippets between arm and arm64, what else is
expected to need to go into such a shared location today?


-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1211695

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +arm-soc
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 17:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>> Commit 9ccd608070b6 ("arm64: dts: add device tree for ARM SMM-A53x2 on
>>>> LogicTile Express 20MG") added a new dts file to arch/arm64 which
>>>> included "../../../../arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2m-rs1.dtsi", i.e. a
>>>> .dtsi supplied by arch/arm.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately this causes some issues for the split device tree
>>>> repository[0], since things get moved around there. In that context
>>>> the new .dts ends up at src/arm64/arm/vexpress-v2f-1xv7-ca53x2.dts
>>>> while the include is at src/arm/vexpress-v2m-rs1.dtsi.
>>>
>>> Hi Grant,
>>>
>>> Do you think there is any chance of getting this into 4.2-rc$NEXT or shall
>>> we wait until 4.3? I'm assuming this should go via the DT tree, but maybe
>>> it should go via an ARM tree?
>>
>> I was assuming this would go thru the arm-soc tree which is why I
>> acked it. It is getting a bit late for 4.2 at this point, but I guess
>> the standalone tree remains broken for these platforms until this is
>> done. Probably not such a big deal in grand scheme of things.
>
> I'm cc:d in the far tail of a thread, so I'll just comment here
> instead of further up:
>
> I'm not a fan at all of creating kernel/dts/<arch>/*, at least if
> there's expected to be contents in there.
>
> We don't have include/linux/asm-<arch>/ in the common tree either.
> Let's not create that for dts.

I'd really like to move ALL dts files from arch/*. There's nothing
really tied to the architecture. They may happen to use some bindings
that only apply to an architecture, but fundamentally they don't
depend on the arch. Also, I'd like to be able to do "make all-dtbs"
and build every dtb in the tree.

That said, I'm not crazy enough to propose this re-org in the kernel
tree, but would like to do that if/when we moved dts files out of the
kernel.

> So, while I'm all for a prefix-based sharing of DTSI files, I don't
> want them to go in a common kernel/dts directory.
>
> Besides sharing some snippets between arm and arm64, what else is
> expected to need to go into such a shared location today?

Overlays. You easily have the same sharing of common boards. There are
also usecases of overlays on architectures that don't generally use DT
(x86).

We could also see sharing between PPC and ARM on FSL networking parts,
but I've not heard if they actually have that problem.

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1211698

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +arm-soc
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 17:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>> Commit 9ccd608070b6 ("arm64: dts: add device tree for ARM SMM-A53x2 on
>>>>> LogicTile Express 20MG") added a new dts file to arch/arm64 which
>>>>> included "../../../../arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2m-rs1.dtsi", i.e. a
>>>>> .dtsi supplied by arch/arm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately this causes some issues for the split device tree
>>>>> repository[0], since things get moved around there. In that context
>>>>> the new .dts ends up at src/arm64/arm/vexpress-v2f-1xv7-ca53x2.dts
>>>>> while the include is at src/arm/vexpress-v2m-rs1.dtsi.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Grant,
>>>>
>>>> Do you think there is any chance of getting this into 4.2-rc$NEXT or shall
>>>> we wait until 4.3? I'm assuming this should go via the DT tree, but maybe
>>>> it should go via an ARM tree?
>>>
>>> I was assuming this would go thru the arm-soc tree which is why I
>>> acked it. It is getting a bit late for 4.2 at this point, but I guess
>>> the standalone tree remains broken for these platforms until this is
>>> done. Probably not such a big deal in grand scheme of things.
>>
>> I'm cc:d in the far tail of a thread, so I'll just comment here
>> instead of further up:
>>
>> I'm not a fan at all of creating kernel/dts/<arch>/*, at least if
>> there's expected to be contents in there.
>>
>> We don't have include/linux/asm-<arch>/ in the common tree either.
>> Let's not create that for dts.
>
> I'd really like to move ALL dts files from arch/*. There's nothing
> really tied to the architecture. They may happen to use some bindings
> that only apply to an architecture, but fundamentally they don't
> depend on the arch. Also, I'd like to be able to do "make all-dtbs"
> and build every dtb in the tree.

The main benefit of keeping it per architecture and platform is that
it partitions the maintainer and review space a bit.

Right now it's not possible to do even per-arch "all-dtbs" since only
the currently configured platforms will get their dtbs compiled.

> That said, I'm not crazy enough to propose this re-org in the kernel
> tree, but would like to do that if/when we moved dts files out of the
> kernel.

I believe this is currently still quite firmly in the "if" stage. :(

>> So, while I'm all for a prefix-based sharing of DTSI files, I don't
>> want them to go in a common kernel/dts directory.
>>
>> Besides sharing some snippets between arm and arm64, what else is
>> expected to need to go into such a shared location today?
>
> Overlays. You easily have the same sharing of common boards. There are
> also usecases of overlays on architectures that don't generally use DT
> (x86).

Ok, overlays might make sense if they can be made to work generically
enough and not be tied to expectations of the base board platform.

Still, even then I don't see dts as a core kernel feature (kernel/*),
lib/* might make more sense. And I don't want to see things like
vexpress stuff in there.

> We could also see sharing between PPC and ARM on FSL networking parts,
> but I've not heard if they actually have that problem.

Yeah, there could potentially be some sharing between MIPS and
ARM{,64} too, but I don't know if we'll actually see it done.


-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1212503

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> +arm-soc
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 17:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>>> Commit 9ccd608070b6 ("arm64: dts: add device tree for ARM SMM-A53x2 on
>>>>>> LogicTile Express 20MG") added a new dts file to arch/arm64 which
>>>>>> included "../../../../arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2m-rs1.dtsi", i.e. a
>>>>>> .dtsi supplied by arch/arm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately this causes some issues for the split device tree
>>>>>> repository[0], since things get moved around there. In that context
>>>>>> the new .dts ends up at src/arm64/arm/vexpress-v2f-1xv7-ca53x2.dts
>>>>>> while the include is at src/arm/vexpress-v2m-rs1.dtsi.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Grant,
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think there is any chance of getting this into 4.2-rc$NEXT or shall
>>>>> we wait until 4.3? I'm assuming this should go via the DT tree, but maybe
>>>>> it should go via an ARM tree?
>>>>
>>>> I was assuming this would go thru the arm-soc tree which is why I
>>>> acked it. It is getting a bit late for 4.2 at this point, but I guess
>>>> the standalone tree remains broken for these platforms until this is
>>>> done. Probably not such a big deal in grand scheme of things.
>>>
>>> I'm cc:d in the far tail of a thread, so I'll just comment here
>>> instead of further up:
>>>
>>> I'm not a fan at all of creating kernel/dts/<arch>/*, at least if
>>> there's expected to be contents in there.
>>>
>>> We don't have include/linux/asm-<arch>/ in the common tree either.
>>> Let's not create that for dts.
>>
>> I'd really like to move ALL dts files from arch/*. There's nothing
>> really tied to the architecture. They may happen to use some bindings
>> that only apply to an architecture, but fundamentally they don't
>> depend on the arch. Also, I'd like to be able to do "make all-dtbs"
>> and build every dtb in the tree.
>
> The main benefit of keeping it per architecture and platform is that
> it partitions the maintainer and review space a bit.

Except we have a fire hose and a bunch of dripping faucets.

> Right now it's not possible to do even per-arch "all-dtbs" since only
> the currently configured platforms will get their dtbs compiled.

I know. It's been on my todo list for a while. Having that per arch at
least would be an improvement. Having it arch independent would mean I
don't even need a cross-compiler (probably).

>> That said, I'm not crazy enough to propose this re-org in the kernel
>> tree, but would like to do that if/when we moved dts files out of the
>> kernel.
>
> I believe this is currently still quite firmly in the "if" stage. :(

There's some renewed discussion around it recently, but still no one
to step up and do it.

>>> So, while I'm all for a prefix-based sharing of DTSI files, I don't
>>> want them to go in a common kernel/dts directory.
>>>
>>> Besides sharing some snippets between arm and arm64, what else is
>>> expected to need to go into such a shared location today?
>>
>> Overlays. You easily have the same sharing of common boards. There are
>> also usecases of overlays on architectures that don't generally use DT
>> (x86).
>
> Ok, overlays might make sense if they can be made to work generically
> enough and not be tied to expectations of the base board platform.

That's the goal at least.

> Still, even then I don't see dts as a core kernel feature (kernel/*),
> lib/* might make more sense. And I don't want to see things like
> vexpress stuff in there.

How's it any different than vexpress board stuff under drivers/.

The original suggestion was under include/dt-bindings/. Not sure if
you saw or like that?

>> We could also see sharing between PPC and ARM on FSL networking parts,
>> but I've not heard if they actually have that problem.
>
> Yeah, there could potentially be some sharing between MIPS and
> ARM{,64} too, but I don't know if we'll actually see it done.

Yep, hard to say.

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1212559

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> +arm-soc
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 17:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>> Commit 9ccd608070b6 ("arm64: dts: add device tree for ARM SMM-A53x2 on
>>>>>>> LogicTile Express 20MG") added a new dts file to arch/arm64 which
>>>>>>> included "../../../../arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2m-rs1.dtsi", i.e. a
>>>>>>> .dtsi supplied by arch/arm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately this causes some issues for the split device tree
>>>>>>> repository[0], since things get moved around there. In that context
>>>>>>> the new .dts ends up at src/arm64/arm/vexpress-v2f-1xv7-ca53x2.dts
>>>>>>> while the include is at src/arm/vexpress-v2m-rs1.dtsi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Grant,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think there is any chance of getting this into 4.2-rc$NEXT or shall
>>>>>> we wait until 4.3? I'm assuming this should go via the DT tree, but maybe
>>>>>> it should go via an ARM tree?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was assuming this would go thru the arm-soc tree which is why I
>>>>> acked it. It is getting a bit late for 4.2 at this point, but I guess
>>>>> the standalone tree remains broken for these platforms until this is
>>>>> done. Probably not such a big deal in grand scheme of things.
>>>>
>>>> I'm cc:d in the far tail of a thread, so I'll just comment here
>>>> instead of further up:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a fan at all of creating kernel/dts/<arch>/*, at least if
>>>> there's expected to be contents in there.
>>>>
>>>> We don't have include/linux/asm-<arch>/ in the common tree either.
>>>> Let's not create that for dts.
>>>
>>> I'd really like to move ALL dts files from arch/*. There's nothing
>>> really tied to the architecture. They may happen to use some bindings
>>> that only apply to an architecture, but fundamentally they don't
>>> depend on the arch. Also, I'd like to be able to do "make all-dtbs"
>>> and build every dtb in the tree.
>>
>> The main benefit of keeping it per architecture and platform is that
>> it partitions the maintainer and review space a bit.
>
> Except we have a fire hose and a bunch of dripping faucets.
>
>> Right now it's not possible to do even per-arch "all-dtbs" since only
>> the currently configured platforms will get their dtbs compiled.
>
> I know. It's been on my todo list for a while. Having that per arch at
> least would be an improvement. Having it arch independent would mean I
> don't even need a cross-compiler (probably).

Yeah, seems like something that should work quite well in the scope of
Ian's tree if nothing else.

Maybe we should build both dtb-y and dtb-n when COMPILE_TEST is set? :)

>>> That said, I'm not crazy enough to propose this re-org in the kernel
>>> tree, but would like to do that if/when we moved dts files out of the
>>> kernel.
>>
>> I believe this is currently still quite firmly in the "if" stage. :(
>
> There's some renewed discussion around it recently, but still no one
> to step up and do it.

And I believe there are still major concerns from platform maintainers
that it will make development much more complicated.

>>>> So, while I'm all for a prefix-based sharing of DTSI files, I don't
>>>> want them to go in a common kernel/dts directory.
>>>>
>>>> Besides sharing some snippets between arm and arm64, what else is
>>>> expected to need to go into such a shared location today?
>>>
>>> Overlays. You easily have the same sharing of common boards. There are
>>> also usecases of overlays on architectures that don't generally use DT
>>> (x86).
>>
>> Ok, overlays might make sense if they can be made to work generically
>> enough and not be tied to expectations of the base board platform.
>
> That's the goal at least.
>
>> Still, even then I don't see dts as a core kernel feature (kernel/*),
>> lib/* might make more sense. And I don't want to see things like
>> vexpress stuff in there.
>
> How's it any different than vexpress board stuff under drivers/.

I'm not sure how to interpret this argument. We don't have vexpress
board stuff under kernel/boards/, so we shouldn't have the
corresponding DT contents under kernel/dts.

> The original suggestion was under include/dt-bindings/. Not sure if
> you saw or like that?

We don't store driver code in include/, so I don't see why we should
store machine descriptions there.

Something like lib/ seems more appropriate. Or drivers/..., but I
suspect that could cause further confusion on the expected separation
of binding/hardware description and the consuming drivers.

>>> We could also see sharing between PPC and ARM on FSL networking parts,
>>> but I've not heard if they actually have that problem.
>>
>> Yeah, there could potentially be some sharing between MIPS and
>> ARM{,64} too, but I don't know if we'll actually see it done.
>
> Yep, hard to say.
>
> Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1216693 — Re: [PATCH v5] dtb: Create a common home for cross-architecture dtsi files.

On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 15:22 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > Right now it's not possible to do even per-arch "all-dtbs" since only
> > > the currently configured platforms will get their dtbs compiled.
> > 
> > I know. It's been on my todo list for a while. Having that per arch at
> > least would be an improvement. Having it arch independent would mean I
> > don't even need a cross-compiler (probably).
> 
> Yeah, seems like something that should work quite well in the scope of
> Ian's tree if nothing else.

In the split tree "make all -k" will already build every dtb (and always
has done), in fact this is how I discovered the breakage which I'm trying
to address with this patch since the daily cronjob which does the
conversion runs this.

> Something like lib/ seems more appropriate. Or drivers/..., but I
> suspect that could cause further confusion on the expected separation
> of binding/hardware description and the consuming drivers.

I'm quite happy to rework the patch with whatever path is settled upon.

Or if someone has an alternative suggestion for how to fix the build in the
split devicetree git tree I'm happy to give that a go too.

> > > > We could also see sharing between PPC and ARM on FSL networking 
> > > > parts,
> > > > but I've not heard if they actually have that problem.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, there could potentially be some sharing between MIPS and
> > > ARM{,64} too, but I don't know if we'll actually see it done.
> > 
> > Yep, hard to say.
> > 
> > Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web