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

[Simon Glass]

Hi Sean,

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 at 08:53, Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com> 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.

Regards,
Simon

>
> --Sean
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/de6e75a083647dfeec3058dd4dcc0419b08e155c.1637285375.git.weijie.gao@mediatek.com/