[PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 22/12/2023 16:46, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 22/12/2023 14:43, Sumit Garg wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 13:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22/12/2023 07:12, Sumit Garg wrote:
>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>> --------------
>>>>> - Patch #1: excluded gitab CI config check and added commit description.
>>>>> - Patch #3: s/UBOOT_DTSI_LOC/u_boot_dtsi_loc/
>>>>> - Patch #4: s/DEVICE_TREE_LOC/dt_dir/ and s/U-boot/U-Boot/
>>>>> - Patch #5: s/U-boot/U-Boot/
>>>>> - Patch #6 and #7: Picked up review tags
>>>>>
>>>>> Prerequisite
>>>>> ------------
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Background
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> This effort started while I was reviewing patch series corresponding to
>>>>> Qcom platforms [1] which was about to import modified devicetree source
>>>>> files from Linux kernel. I suppose keeping devicetree files sync with
>>>>> Linux kernel without any DT bindings schema validation has been a pain
>>>>> for U-Boot SoC/platform maintainers. There has been past discussions
>>>>> about a single DT repo but that hasn't come up and Linux kernel remained
>>>>> the place where DT source files as well as bindings are placed and
>>>>> maintained.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for doing this.
>>>>
>>>> I really suggest to store information that kernel DTS is directly
>>>> re-used, thus DTS backward and forward compatibility matters, also in
>>>> Linux kernel sources. The point is that sub-arch maintainers should be
>>>> aware of it. I don't think that as DT maintainers we can efficiently
>>>> keep an eye on it. Maybe create a subsystem profile and include it to
>>>> maintainer entries of such affected platforms?
>>>>
>>>
>>> From U-Boot point of view, currently we have the config option:
>>> "CONFIG_OF_UPSTREAM=y" per platform which means directly re-use of
>>> kernel DTS. So U-Boot sub-arch maintainers should be aware of
>>> platforms which get converted to re-use kernel DTS.
>>
>> I was speaking about kernel.
>>
>>>
>>> I suppose we have to relay information to kernel sub-arch maintainers
>>> who aren't the same as maintaining U-Boot counterparts. How about
>>> adding U-Boot ML to CC for whichever DT change gets submitted in the
>>
>> And every other project? Just setup lei filters.
>>
>>> kernel? Otherwise adding U-Boot sub-arch maintainers as reviewers for
>>> corresponding kernel DT changes works too if that's acceptable.
>>
>> You just entirely ignored my proposal without addressing it... ok let it
>> be. No, CC-ing U-boot maintainers changes nothing because as I said, I
>> want kernel maintainers and contributors to be aware.
> 
> Maybe an underlying question is, what kernel maintainers aren't aware,
> but should have been already? Then we can figure out how to address

None of them is aware.

> that. For example, with your Samsung hat on you weren't aware that
> exynos 4/5/7 DTS files are cared about by U-Boot, but are now aware.

Hm, I am still not aware of this. I mean, you wrote it above, but it is
the first time I see using directly usptream DTS for U-Boot on Samsung
platforms.

Did anyone test it actually? I certainly did not. I think this patchset
did not remove U-Boot-tree Samsung DTS, did it?

Best regards,
Krzysztof