On 08/04/2014 02:14 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 4 August 2014 11:47, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
On 08/04/2014 04:43 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
On 1 August 2014 15:50, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
...
DT schemas/bindings MUST be identical between U-Boot, Linux, FreeBSD,
Barebox, ... (all of which use DT). As such, all the DT bindings MUST be
discussed on the devicetree mailing list.
Since you're the author of the patch, it's your responsibility to have that
discussion.
Are you referring to the linux,stdout-path discussion, or something
more DT-generic?I suppose we could have a 'u-boot,console' for our
part. But in any case you are talking about code and a convention that
is already in mainline U-Boot.
I'm saying that any and all additions or changes to DT schemas/bindings must be
discussed on the devicetree mailing list, not made/reviewed in isolation on
only the U-Boot mailing list.
While I accept that we might change to
something DT-generic if Linux points the way to something better, I
don't want to stop using it just because Linux hasn't decided yet. The
early console stuff and early debug UART stuff in Linux is not yet a
shining example of perfection.
I strongly believe that if U-Boot continues to use DT, the current DT usage in
U-Boot needs to be actively moved in line with the bindings that the Linux
kernel, Barebox, FreeBSD, ... use. I'd prefer this to happen even before U-Boot
starts making additional use of DT, so the conversion doesn't get forgotten.
However, I suppose it's a bit draconian to prevent further usage until the
existing usage is cleaned up, except where new usage introduces additional
dependencies on any current usage that's inconsistent with the standard
bindings.
That said, it's a good time to adopt 'u-boot,console' if that's what we need?
It's certainly a good time to start that discussion on the devicetree mailing
list, and get such a new property reviewed/ack'd there.
[side note: You will be aware that I have expended considerable effort
getting agreement on bindings. I used to copy all DT patches to that
mailing list, but I can't recall getting a reply that often. Also note
that U-Boot's use of DT pre-dated the kernel with many subsystems
(e.g. the request to retrofit clock bindings after the code was
already written). Yes, DT bindings should be common across all
platforms, but where subsystems don't exist in U-Boot I feel the
approach of 'do nothing until someone writes a new subsystem' might
just be a recipe for inaction/no progress. Better to iterate towards
perfection than never move]
Do nothing isn't the right approach.
Invent something else without co-ordinating it isn't the right approach.
Proposing the DT bindings for that subsystem (even if the kernel doesn't
implement code that handles the binding yet) and getting that merged
into the DT binding documentation repository (which just happens to be
part of the Linux kernel tree right now) is the only approach that makes
sense.
So to be clear, with the clock-frequency property moved back to being
hard-coded in the CONFIG, your remaining objection is that the console
alias, which is already used in U-Boot, should be agreed with the
devicetree mailing list? Is that right?
IIRC, yes.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
