[PATCH 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-boot

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 3:03 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 07:20:55PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
>
> > Prerquisite
> > -----------
> >
> > This patch series requires devicetree-rebasing git repo to be added as a
> > subtree to the main U-boot repo via:
> >
> > $ git subtree add --prefix devicetree-rebasing \
> >       git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git \
> >       v6.6-dts --squash
>
> So, I've played with subtree a little and I think this is the right way
> forward in these cases. If anyone wants to take a look at how this works
> in practice, take a look at:
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/commits/WIP/u-boot-with-devicetree-rebasing-since-v6.1/?ref_type=heads
> In that tree I started with the v6.1-dts tag, sync'd all the configs (to
> have an example of a normal commit) and then did a merge of each tag
> until v6.6-dts, so provide some history. And git log looks like what I
> want to see, the squash commit has clear references to what we are
> getting and I make a merge commit that says what I did. If you pull the
> tree and checkout the branch, all the code is right there already,
> nothing further to do. Same with tarball releases. The only thing I
> don't like is the size growth there, but we'll reclaim some of it when
> we delete our obsolete bindings, and then obsolete dts files.

I spent a bit of time with subtree as well, as part of reviewing this
series, using the instructions Sumit provided. It seems OK to me. We
have to accept that it adds code and there will be changes/churn, but
it is not too different to accepting patches on those files within
U-Boot. We will bring in files which U-Boot doesn't use, but U-Boot
does support a good proportion of the boards supported by Linux, so I
don't see that as a big cost.

>From my experimentation, subtrees seem to have no impact on buildman,
which is great. Am I missing anything?

I still worry about the board-level 'switch' between U-Boot DT and
upstream ones. I believe that should be at the SoC level instead.

>
> Maxim, please switch (back, sorry!) to subtree for the next lwIP
> patchset and just not in the prerequisite steps what the subtree command
> is, and make sure the docs have an example of what future re-sync
> "subtree pull" commands should look like. For CI testing, you'll have to
> do that to start with and just not include that patch in the ML part.

Regards,
Simon