Are dt-bindings headers part of the device tree spec?

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 10:53:26AM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm reviewing a clock driver [1], and the submitter has deviated from
> the defines used by Linux. For example, where Linux might have
> 
> 	#define CLOCK_FOOBAR 5
> 
> his driver might have
> 
> 	#define CLK_FUBAR 6
> 
> Which means that both the device tree source and the resulting device
> tree binary will be different.
> 
> As I understand it, we try to be compatible with Linux on these things.
> However, it is unclear to me if include/dt-bindings is also part of
> this, or just the things in Documentation/devicetree/bindings. And if it
> is, do we need to have compatible sources, compatible binaries, or both?
> In general, I think we should try to have the same headers as well, but
> is it permitted to allow deviations with reasonable justification?
> 
> --Sean
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/de6e75a083647dfeec3058dd4dcc0419b08e155c.1637285375.git.weijie.gao@mediatek.com/

Adding a few more people to the thread.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20211215/b8c2bc72/attachment.sig>