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

Simon Glass sjg at
Fri Dec 17 17:37:01 CET 2021

Hi Sean,

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 08:53, Sean Anderson <seanga2 at> 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?

I think they should be the same, including the name and value. It gets
too confusing otherwise.

If there are conversions needed for U-Boot, perhaps they could be
handled by some #defines in the driver or another file in U-Boot.


> --Sean
> [1]

More information about the U-Boot mailing list