On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:45:26PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > Hi Ilias, > > On 5/19/23 14:21, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > HI Jassi, Michal > > > > Based on the discussion we had on the dt bindings, I am personally ok with > > the notion of having those defined internally until we can prove it makes > > sense for the to be sent to the dt-schema. > > > > In the future we need to strip those from U-Boot, before we hand over the > > DR to the OS, but this is a problem that already exists regardless of this > > patchset. > > > > Jassi, Michal had some review comments. Are you going to send a v5 with > > those fixed? > > We created this patch for dt-schema and if there is no comment I will be > sending it to Rob to get merge. > > lore.kernel.org/r/ca0715934133dbce6a5a3fd91483e0af92ea8ac6.1683815597.git.michal.si...@amd.com > > As I said I am fine with having it in u-boot tree only but that node has to > be removed to pass certification. > It means I would expect that we will solve it together not later on because > it will catch us very quickly. > If you have code in EFI to do that it, let's just do it together to be able > to pass IR2.0 requirements without waiting for another patch.
So I think in sum, I think the path today is to see if Rob will accept that patch and if not, either rework based on feedback or if the feedback is "this is U-Boot centric atm, not appropriate" we'll go with the path of removing nodes before the OS gets the tree, which I think is a generic enough bit of framework that we'll need regardless, for 2.0. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
