On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 10:19:55AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 03:07, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > Provide a way for removing certain devicetree nodes and/or properties > > from the devicetree. This is needed to purge certain nodes and > > properties which may be relevant only in U-Boot. Such nodes and > > properties are then removed from the devicetree before it is passed to > > the kernel. This ensures that the devicetree passed to the OS does not > > contain any non-compliant nodes and properties. > > > > The removal of the nodes and properties is being done through an > > EVT_FT_FIXUP handler. I am not sure if the removal code needs to be > > behind any Kconfig symbol. > > > > I have only build tested this on sandbox, and tested on qemu arm64 > > virt platform. This being a RFC, I have not put this through a CI run. > > > > Sughosh Ganu (5): > > dt: Provide a way to remove non-compliant nodes and properties > > fwu: Add the fwu-mdata node for removal from devicetree > > capsule: Add the capsule-key property for removal from devicetree > > bootefi: Call the EVT_FT_FIXUP event handler > > doc: Add a document for non-compliant DT node/property removal > > > > cmd/bootefi.c | 18 +++++ > > .../devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst | 64 ++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/fwu-mdata/fwu-mdata-uclass.c | 5 ++ > > include/dt-structs.h | 11 +++ > > lib/Makefile | 1 + > > lib/dt_purge.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++ > > lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c | 7 ++ > > 7 files changed, 179 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 doc/develop/devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst > > create mode 100644 lib/dt_purge.c > > What is the point of removing them? Instead, we should make sure that > we upstream the bindings and encourage SoC vendors to sync them. If we > remove them, no one will bother and U-Boot just becomes a dumping > ground.
It's about having a defined process to remove them, rather than an ad-hoc process like one can do today to remove them. And it's about having control over the situation rather than dismissing it, as vendor can already say they used $this version of the software for validation, so patches-on-top aren't out of the question. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
