On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 6:07:40 PM CET Petr Štetiar wrote: > Christian Lamparter <[email protected]> [2018-12-31 17:41:34]: > > > I hope you know what you are up against because unless you also do the > > changes > > upstream this will happen again and again. :\ / :) > > My plan is to first wait for comments here, see if it gets merged eventualy > and then start poking upstream. I still didn't received any feedback yet(good > sign?) on my last `treewide: dts: Remove default-state=off property...`[1] > upstream attempt so I don't know if it's worth the effort. Hm, interesting. I usually get replies within a few days. Granted, I have never sent anything that big in a single mail to multiple mailinglists and maintainers. I would try to split up the patch into multiple patches so that each maintainer has the chance to act on just his own turf. Keep in mind that linux-kernel is heavily compartmentalized. The device-tree maintainers mainly just ack/review patches for the subsystem maintainers. This is done in order to prevent the conflicts between the various trees when they get staged into -next and ultimately wander into the kernel during the "merge window".
I guess if you still want to follow through you could start to update the binding documents. But, I do understand that you don't want to waste anymore time with it. > Anyway, I guess, that in most of the cases, people are just copy&pasting from > the DTS files from the OpenWrt repository and some of them even wonder[2] why > they need to use generic `leds` node names if it's not the case in the rest of > the DTS files in OpenWrt tree: > > @mkresin: would you please rename the node to the generic "leds". > @arapov: @mkresin, by the way, the rest of *.dts in ramips/ using gpio-leds. > Do you still think it is good to deviate from the rest here? > > 1. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10732465/ > 2. https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/1686#discussion_r244512451 True, I think you noticed that it's a surprisingly long and weird difficult process to push these sort of changes upstream unless you are directly involved there. However it's much easier to comment on the daily patches/PRs and make sure that new boards/dts are up to spec with the latest craze and also, you get the chance to interact with the commiters a bit. > 3. https://openwrt.org/submitting-patches#dts_checklist ^^ I know that one only too well. "The name of a node should reflect the function of the device and not its model. " I c&p that from the device-tree spec and linked to it so devs know from where these seemingly arbitrary rules come from. While looking at the checklist, I noticed that one of the "SPDX license tag" check is already automated in the upstream scripts/checkpatch.pl... And now, I wish that the script could also act on default-state = "off", the "gpio-keys-polled" and "gpio-leds" node names, etc. Oh well. Regards, Christian _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
