Hi Tom, On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 08:00, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:53:46AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 08:48, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > [snip] > > > We should, when applicable, submit our bindings upstream just like any > > > other project. We also want to make sure that when we do so, we hold > > > ourselves to a high standard. > > > > I wonder if should just try just try that again, just to see what > > happens. I vaguely remember the UART clock thing from many years ago, > > being told that we should just probe the whole clock driver and then > > have a debug UART... > > > > But it really isn't up to Linux to refuse to accept U-Boot bindings, > > IMO. U-Boot has much right to u-boot, as Linux does to linux, > > A bit late, but yes, between then and now I believe things have changed > and there is a more broad acceptance that just because the primary > repository for device trees and bindings is the linux kernel does not > mean that only the linux kernel needs to be considered. So we really do > need to pick something, polish it up, and then subject ourselves to > review.
I sent a patch and this is under discussion now: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20211012074608.v2.1.I7733f5a849476e908cc51f0c71b8a594337fbbdf@changeid/ Regards, Simon
