[PATCH 00/21] Qualcomm generic board support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 04/12/2023 14:24, Sumit Garg wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 at 16:30, Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson at linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
> 
> The Linux kernel may come in various forms (upstream vs stable vs
> vendor). It's difficult to decide from where the DT bindings should
> come from. Should they come from upstream or should they come from the
> kernel which is actually booted onto a particular device?
> 
> IOW, as of now which kernel version should u-boot pick up for DT
> validation checks?

The same version as in case of release from separate DT bindings repo.

> 
> If we can have a separate release cadence for DT bindings then the
> platform (firmware/bootloader) can attest the DTB against that. Later
> one should be able to boot any kernel with the DTB provided by
> platform.

Separate releases of DT bindings change nothing here - you are going to
ask the same question: "which release shall I take"?

So the answer could be the same for both: take latest mainline kernel
release.

You really don't need separate repo just to know which release to take.

Best regards,
Krzysztof