[PATCH v1 0/5] Convert recently merged T30 boards to use DM PMIC

[Peter Robinson]

> > > > > > > Since the proposed PMIC patches have been accepted, I see the need
> > > > > > > to convert boards which I maintain to use DM drivers instead of board hacks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Svyatoslav Ryhel (5):
> > > > > > >   board: lg-x3: convert LG Optimus 4X and Vu to use DM PMIC
> > > > > > >   board: endeavoru: convert HTC One X to use DM PMIC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there a reason why the two above devices don't appear to have their
> > > > > > .dts files in the upstream kernel?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, there is a reason. Linux maintainers treat submitters as
> > > > > existential enemies or as dirt at least. I was trying to work with
> > > > > linux but I have no desire to spend any time to upstream endeavoru or
> > > > > lg_x3.
> > > >
> > > > The usual policy for acceptance into U-Boot is to have upstream review
> > > > in the kernel first.
> > > >
> > >
> > > May you point to a policy which clearly and explicitly states this as
> > > a mandatory condition?
> >
> > There have been a number of devices rejected in the past until their
> > DT are upstream but I'll leave Tom, who I've explicitly added on cc:,
> > to clarify the exact policy.
>
> Well, here is where it's tricky. I brought this up for one of the
> Broadcom MIPS platforms a week or two back, and Linus Walleij's point
> (and I'm paraphrasing) is there's not really an upstream for it to go.
>
> What we cannot have is device tree bindings[1] that aren't upstream or
> worse yet conflict with the official bindings.
>
> So the general way to resolve that is have device tree file be drop-in
> from the linux kernel, and what additions we must have be done via
> -u-boot.dtsi files. And in turn, some SoCs are better about keeping in
> sync with the kernel than other SoCs are.
>
> Now, upstream being actively hostile to dts files, especially for older
> platforms? That's unfortunate. So long as we aren't violating the rules
> about bindings, the intention is that we don't have device trees that
> are either (a) massively out of sync with the kernel[2] or (b) kept
> intentionally mismatched from the kernel.

I don't believe I've seen upstream Tegra maintainers being actively
hostile towards updates for older devices, I know they have certainly
defocused them, but I'm not sure that's what I'd consider hostile.

> [1]: There are both examples like binman that Simon is working on at
> least but this is more exception than intentional rule.
> [2]: Per our other conversions, I know the tegra ones are in this
> unfortunate state in general