[RFC PATCH 5/5] doc: Add a document for non-compliant DT node/property removal

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 10:52:04AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 05:50, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ilias,
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 01:25, Ilias Apalodimas
> > <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Tom
> > >
> > > On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 21:39, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:04:53AM +0530, Sughosh Ganu wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > >
> > > > > Please re-read the document including the last link [1]. If you go
> > > > > through that entire thread, you will notice that this is precisely
> > > > > what Linaro was trying to do here -- upstream the binding for the
> > > > > fwu-mdata node. It is only based on the feedback of the devicetree
> > > > > maintainers that this patchset was required.
> > > > >
> > > > > -sughosh
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAL_JsqJN4FeHomL7z3yj0WJ9bpx1oSE7zf26L_GV2oS6cg-5qg@mail.gmail.com/#t
> > > >
> > > > Please note that this right here, that the explanation of why we need to
> > > > delete this node, not being a bright shiny visible object is one of the
> > > > big problems with this patchset and implementation. It cannot be
> > > > footnotes in email threads as to why such-and-such node/property isn't
> > > > upstream, it needs to be documented and visible in the code base /
> > > > documentation and an obvious you must do this for future cases.
> > >
> > > I thought we agreed that deleting nodes that won't be accepted
> > > upstream is the right approach since that would break the systemready
> > > 2.0 compatibility.
> >
> > Isn't that controlled by ARM/Linaros, as are the devicetree bindings?
> 
> The device tree validation happens through the dt schema validation.
> You can read a bit more here [0]
> 
> > What am I missing? Let's just fix the bindings so they can be
> > accepted.
> 
> I can go through the mailing lists, but I am pretty sure you've been
> trying to do this for a number of years and got pushback for many of
> those bindings.  Has that changed?

Yes, yes it has changed. It has changed for the better, and we're
all working together to get things accepted.  Hence Simon's big concern
that adding the framework to delete things from the tree easily will
cause people to stop trying.

> Can you guarantee to all the
> vendors that all the bindings will get merged and they won't have a
> problem getting their boards certified?

It certainly seems that, ahem, no reasonable binding will be refused.

-- 
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/20230831/fd9a5f7e/attachment.sig>