On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:08 AM ff <f...@shokubai.tech> wrote: > > > > > Le 6 déc. 2023 à 21:42, Rob Herring <robh...@kernel.org> a écrit : > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:05 PM Sumit Garg <sumit.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 15:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski > >>> <krzysztof.kozlow...@linaro.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 05/12/2023 10:45, Sumit Garg wrote: > >>>> + U-boot custodians list > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 at 12:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski > >>>> <krzysztof.kozlow...@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 05/12/2023 08:13, Sumit Garg wrote: > >>>>>>>> @DT bindings maintainers, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Given the ease of maintenance of DT bindings within Linux kernel > >>>>>>>> source tree, I don't have a specific objection there. But can we ease > >>>>>>>> DTS testing for firmware/bootloader projects by providing a versioned > >>>>>>>> release package for DT bindings? Or if someone else has a better idea > >>>>>>>> here please feel free to chime in. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This doesn't work for you?: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, this is certainly a good step which I wasn't aware of. Further > >>>>>> simplification can be done to decouple devicetree source files from DT > >>>>>> bindings. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why? > >>>> > >>>> I suppose you are already aware that Linux DTS files are a subset of > >>>> what could be supported by devicetree schemas. There can be > >>>> firmware/bootloader specific properties (one example being [1]) which > >>>> Linux kernel can simply ignore. Will you be willing to add all of > >>>> those DT properties to Linux DTS files and maintain them? > >>> > >>> We already added them and we already maintain them. DTS describes the > >>> hardware, not the OS-subset of the hardware. > >> > >> Let look at some numbers if your statement is justified or not for the > >> example I gave: > >> > >> u-boot$ git grep -nr bootph-* arch/arm* | wc -l > >> 4079 > >> > >> linux$ git grep -nr bootph-* arch/arm* | wc -l > >> 267 > > > > I have no control over whether anyone has submitted the other 3812 > > instances. > > > >> It looks like there is always going to be a catch up game regarding DT > >> properties which either Linux kernel or u-boot or any other > >> firmware/bootloader project don't care about. > > > > As long as dts files in u-boot are manually sync'ed, yes. That is the > > problem and it doesn't matter if we have a standalone repository or > > not. > > > > If you want to move in that direction, start automating what u-boot > > imports. You need to do that for bindings if you want to run > > validation, so why not dts files too? > > > >>>> However, DT bindings are something which should be common, the > >>>> hardware description of a device should be universal. IMO, splitting > >>> > >>> Both DT bindings and DTS should be common. I don't see the difference. > >> > >> If we really care about DTS to be common then the contribution model > >> has to change where there is a single repo hosting DT bindings and > >> DTS. All other projects whether it is Linux kernel or u-boot or any > >> other OS/firmware/bootloader are just consuming DTS files from that > >> single repo. > > > > Really, only the kernel and u-boot matter. No, I don't mean I don't > > care about other projects, but those are the 2 with the widest h/w > > support by far and which have a major effort to sync copies of dts > > files in both projects. The rest are just noise in terms of this > > problem. > > > >> I suppose this is something that Linux DT maintainers > >> have objected to in the past for ease of maintenance. I am not sure if > >> you folks are willing to change that stance. > > > > The issue is no one steps up to help maintain such a repository while > > there is lots of review and maintainer work on what goes into the > > kernel tree. I'm happy to direct my binding review attention to > > wherever the majority of the bindings go. But the work on the DTS side > > is mostly SoC tree maintainers and sub-maintainers. > > > > Assume for a minute we have this standalone repo. What happens next? > > We start with an empty repo and then merge and move platforms 1 by 1? > > What about leveraging SystemReady-IR compliant board maintainers and start > with a core of motivated people ?
I think there are 2 ATM. Synquacer and i.MX8 variants. Synquacer only has a DT in u-boot, so not really anything to do there. I'm pretty sure the certified DTBs for i.MX8 don't match what's in u-boot or the kernel tree. Hopefully, it's just a subset, but still, there's a gap. I don't know that there is motivation there either. Note that SystemReady currently only requires every node with 'compatible' have a schema. It does not yet require no schema warnings. If we went with a 1 by 1 approach, I would push that platforms have to be free of warnings. > > How many years will that take? > > Should all platforms following that organization be a goal? You mean should all platforms be moved? Absolutely. I don't think we want to solve the problem of having DTS files in 2 places by creating a 3rd place. I don't really think 1 by 1 is the right approach. I was just enumerating how this could work. It's not that useful to say we need a standalone repo without working thru the logistics of how exactly that will work. Rob _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list -- boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to boot-architecture-le...@lists.linaro.org
