On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:09:55 -0700 Vasily Khoruzhick <anars...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:54 AM Andre Przywara > <andre.przyw...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 17:29:58 +0200 > > Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 04:18:41PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 22:09:30 -0700 > > > > Vasily Khoruzhick <anars...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > Updates the device tree file from the the Linux tree as of > > > > > v4.19-rc4, exactly Linux commit: > > > > > > > > Does this work easily without syncing the .dts files as well? > > > > > > > > > commit 7876320f8880 (tag: v4.19-rc4) > > > > > Author: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> > > > > > Date: Sun Sep 16 11:52:37 2018 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > Linux 4.19-rc4 > > > > > > > > So this sounds like the right thing to do, but in this > > > > particular case breaks Ethernet with UEFI booting in all > > > > distribution installers or kernels out there (except >= Linux > > > > 4.19-rc1). I consider this a major use case of U-Boot's DTB, so > > > > what do we do about this? > > > > The reason is that we dropped the "syscon" compatible string at > > > > the end of the system-controller node, which older kernels rely > > > > on to find the syscon node. > > > > I suggested to re-add this[1], but didn't have much success, > > > > unfortunately. > > > > The easiest would be to re-add (or not remove) "syscon" for > > > > U-Boot's copy, but this would mean a deviation from the Linux > > > > DT's. I am fine with this, but would like to hear more > > > > opinions. > > > > > > tl; dr: You want to build something robust on top of assumptions > > > that have never been guaranteed. > > > > I just find it sad that "we do not guarantee" translates into "we > > actually don't even try". My understanding of your concern is that > > you can't rule this breakage out forever, which I can understand. > > But if it is possible to avoid breaking compatibility, I believe we > > should try this, on a case-by-case base. > > We have been pretty good so far (leaving alone the MMC regulator > > breakage in v4.15, but A64 support was quite basic before that > > anyway). > > > I'm fine with having it as a U-Boot > > > addition, if it's what it takes. > > > > Sounds good to me! Thanks! > > > > I will check what's the easiest path to get the 4.20 DTs into > > U-Boot, considering a stopover at the Pinebook DTs, and send > > patches ASAP. > > So do you want me to wait for you to submit a patch that syncs > sun50i-a64.dtsi? I will review the rest of your series later tonight and try to suggest something that's the easiest for you then. Cheers, Andre _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
