Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] xen/device-tree: Move Arm's setup.c bootinfo functions to common

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan,

On 21/03/2024 07:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.03.2024 19:07, Shawn Anastasio wrote:
> > On 3/15/24 4:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 14.03.2024 23:15, Shawn Anastasio wrote:
> > > > Arm's setup.c contains a collection of functions for parsing memory map
> > > > and other boot information from a device tree. Since these routines are
> > > > generally useful on any architecture that supports device tree booting,
> > > > move them into xen/common/device-tree.
> > > >
> > > > Suggested-by: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Anastasio <sanastasio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >   MAINTAINERS                       |   1 +
> > > >   xen/arch/arm/setup.c              | 419 --------------------------
> > > >   xen/common/Makefile               |   1 +
> > > >   xen/common/device-tree/Makefile   |   1 +
> > > >   xen/common/device-tree/bootinfo.c | 469 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >   5 files changed, 472 insertions(+), 419 deletions(-)
> > > >   create mode 100644 xen/common/device-tree/Makefile
> > > >   create mode 100644 xen/common/device-tree/bootinfo.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> > > > index 56a6932037..e85fbe6737 100644
> > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > > > @@ -301,6 +301,7 @@ M:  Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >   M:    Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
> > > >   S:    Supported
> > > >   F:    xen/common/libfdt/
> > > > +F:     xen/common/device-tree/setup.c
> > > Perhaps more generally
> > >
> > > F:      xen/common/device-tree/
> > >
> > > ?
> > This was done to allow bootfdt.c (next patch) to remain under ARM's
> > maintainership, which I believe was your suggestion in v2.
> >
> > Perhaps it would make sense to leave both setup.c and bootfdt.c under
> > ARM's maintainership, or would it be acceptable to move both to device
> > tree?
> What exactly is wanted needs to be sorted by the maintainers (Arm / DT).
> To me, having everything DT under DT maintainership (which is a subset
> of Arm maintainers anyway) would make most sense.
I would say this should go under "Device Tree". So it will be easy to 
add PPC/RISC-V folks in the future.
I am also open to add Bertrand/Michal to the existing "Device Tree" 
category. But this can be sorted it out separately.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall