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

[Sumit Garg]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 22/12/2023 16:45, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > I don't think that adding U-Boot platform maintainers as reviewers for
> > the platforms in the kernel is a terrible idea. Certainly kernel
> > platform maintainers for which U-Boot platform maintainers are added to
> > the MAINTAINERS entry will be aware. That said, something like your
>
> The point is it does not solve my concern here. I did not express
> problem that U-Boot maintainers are not aware. They can easily be aware
> by setting simple lei filters.

I thought your major concern was how we can enforce DTS backward and
forward compatibility although the DT ABI stability is already
documented here [1]. My suggestion was really based on recognising
people who really care about DT ABI for particular platforms. I think
adding people from other projects would certainly help with DT ABI
stability since the kernel is the single point of contribution. There
will be DT contributors from other projects too like you may have
already seen people contributing bootloader (U-Boot) specific
bindings/DTS changes.

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-soc.html#devicetree-abi-stability

>
> The problem I want to solve is the kernel maintainers to be aware.
>

Although Tom has already expressed in the other thread that U-Boot has
been a long time user of upstream DT but if we want to make it more
formal from an enforcement point of view then I liked Conor's idea. If
you agree then I can create maintainer profile entry as per following
example for Amlogic platforms to start with:

ARM/Amlogic Meson SoC support
M:      Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong at linaro.org>
M:      Kevin Hilman <khilman at baylibre.com>
R:      Jerome Brunet <jbrunet at baylibre.com>
R:      Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl at googlemail.com>
L:      linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
L:      linux-amlogic at lists.infradead.org
S:      Maintained
P:      Documentation/process/maintainer-soc-u-boot-dt-abi.rst
W:      http://linux-meson.com/
F:      Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/amlogic*
F:      arch/arm/boot/dts/amlogic/
F:      arch/arm/mach-meson/
F:      arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/
F:      drivers/pmdomain/amlogic/
F:      drivers/mmc/host/meson*
F:      drivers/phy/amlogic/
F:      drivers/pinctrl/meson/
F:      drivers/rtc/rtc-meson*
F:      drivers/soc/amlogic/
N:      meson

-Sumit