[U-Boot] [PATCHv4 3/3] ARM64: poplar: hi3798cv200: u-boot support for Poplar 96Boards

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:16:52AM +0200, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
>> On 05/12/2017 12:32 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> >>ummmm I am a bit lost at this point, could we recap please?
>> >Sure.
>> >
>> >>let's see: I need to use the pl01x uart on an aarch64 platform and I
>> >>dont need to enable any clocks for uboot in my SoC. Not now,
>> >>unlikely ever.
>> >>
>> >>Doing what other boards have done to this date is no longer
>> >>acceptable (ie platform data for the pl01x or using uboots "clock"
>> >>property embedded in the hacked device trees)
>> >The only thing we all agree on right now is that "clock" is wrong and
>> >must be replaced.  I've decided we need to discuss bringing in platform
>> >data for pl01x.  Once we resolve this, then you can re-spin the series
>> >(and hopefully have the USB nodes be submitted to Linux too, since
>> >they're the standard ones and, uh, should just enable USB on your board
>> >in the kernel too..)  Thanks!
>>
>> cool, that sounds great, thanks.
>>
>> yeah the usb nodes should be ready pretty soon, I have seen them
>> circulating already.
>>
>> btw, what was it that triggered our discussion?  it is not like any
>> of the dts files for armv8 boards are verbatim copies of what you
>> find in the kernel.
>
> They've gotten out of sync? Sigh..  I suppose this starts to push me
> from the "keep them in the kernel" camp to "push them to a separate
> authoritative repository" camp.

What's wrong with the standalone DT tree[1] and importing that to
u-boot periodically?

I know folks would like a completely separate tree that's not "the
Linux DT tree", but I don't see that happening any time soon. Do we
have some Linuxisms in bindings, yes, but in general I think they are
more the exception than rule and were things that went in with little
review. These days I'm reviewing pretty much all bindings (not all dts
files though), so I think it's less of a problem. Logistically, we
could probably work out how to move bindings and dts files to a
standalone repository as I could apply bindings and most dts files go
thru arm-soc maintainers. My biggest concern with a separate
repository is review because we would quickly loose any review that
Linux subsystem maintainers do, and no one is beating down my door to
help be a DT maintainer.

Rob

[1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git