[PATCH 00/21] Qualcomm generic board support

[Daniel Thompson]

On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:02:57AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> + Linux kernel DT bindings maintainers, EBBR ML
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 at 20:05, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 01:02:25PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 22:06, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong at linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > I've been thinking about and hacking on this for the last week or so,
> > > > > sorry for the delayed reply here.
> > > > >
> > > > > The value is in preventing any of the existing bindings from regressing,
> > >
> > > That is actually best addressed in Linux by checking the DTS against
> > > yaml DT bindings. We don't have that testing available in u-boot and
> > > only depend on careful reviews.
> >
> > I would absolutely love for someone to make another attempt at updating
> > our kbuild infrastucture so that we can run the validation targets.
> >
>
> Given that EBBR requires [1] the platform (firmware/bootloader) and
> not OS to supply the devicetree, it becomes evident that
> firmware/bootloaders import DTS from Linux kernel (where it is
> maintained).
>
> But currently u-boot doesn't have a proper way to validate those DTS
> against DT bindings (maintained in Linux kernel). Although there are
> Devicetree schema tools available here [2], there isn't a versioned
> release package of DT bindings which one should use to validate DTS
> files.

The kernel is regularly released in multiple forms (including git
tags and tarball). Why isn't the kernel itself sufficient to be a
versioned release of the DT bindings directory?


Daniel.