[PATCH v6 00/25] fdt: Make OF_BOARD a boolean option

[Ilias Apalodimas]

Hi Simon, 

> > > > >

[...]

> > > > > Changes in v6:
> > > > > - Fix description of OF_BOARD so it refers just to the current state
> > > > > - Explain that the 'two devicetrees' refers to two *control* devicetrees
> > > > > - Expand the commit message based on comments
> > > > > - Expand the commit message based on comments
> > > >
> > > > You haven’t addressed any concerns expressed on the mailing list.so I am
> > > > not in favor of this new version either.
> > > > If you make a version without « fake DTs » as you name them, there are good
> > > > advances in the documentation and other areas that would be better in
> > > > mainline….
> > > > If I am the only one thinking this way and the patch can be accepted, I
> > > > would love there is a warning in capital letters at the top of the DTS fake
> > > > files that explains the intent of this fake DT, the possible outcomes of
> > > > not using the one provided by the platform and the right way of dealing
> > > > with DTs for the platform.
> > >
> > > This is the part that I too am still unhappy about.  I do not want
> > > reference or fake or whatever device trees in the U-Boot source tree.
> > > We should be able to _remove_ the ones we have, that are not required,
> > > with doc/board/...rst explaining how to get / view one.  Not adding
> > > more.
> >
> > So this is a key point for me and the reason I completely disagree
> > with this approach.  This proposal is working in the *exact* opposite
> > direction and we'll never be able to get rid of device trees from
> > U-Boot, even if at some point they move out of the kernel to a
> > 'common' repo'.  I'll just repeat what I've been saying since v1.
> > Personally I'd be way happier if we could figure out were the specific
> > U-Boot config nodes are needed and when are they needed.  Based on
> > what we figure out we could, pick up the device tree from a previous
> > state bootloader and fix it up with our special nodes before we start
> > using it, using internal DTS files (compiled to .dtbos or similar)
> > that indeed belong in the u-boot tree.
> 
> Eh? If the device tree files are actually common then there should be
> a single source. If U-Boot has a copy then it should be identical.
> 
> The special node thing makes no sense for U-Boot. We just need to
> upstream our bindings and I am working on that.

Yea we discussed this on v5.  If the device bindings are upstreamed things
gets substantially easier.  But that's a big if.

> 
> Are the device tree files moving out of Linux?

There was an effort from Linaro and iirc we tried to move a few and see
how things would work out, but there's nothing official.

Regards
/Ilias