On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:04:53AM +0530, Sughosh Ganu wrote: > hi Simon, > > On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 23:25, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 03:07, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > Add a document explaining the need for removal of non-compliant > > > devicetree nodes and properties. Also describe in brief, the macros > > > that can be used for this removal. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst | 64 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 doc/develop/devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst > > > > > > diff --git a/doc/develop/devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst > > > b/doc/develop/devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000000..c3a8feab5b > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/doc/develop/devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst > > > @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ > > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > > + > > > +Removal of non-compliant nodes and properties > > > +============================================= > > > + > > > +The devicetree used in U-Boot might contain nodes and properties which > > > +are specific only to U-Boot, and are not necessarily being used to > > > +describe hardware but to pass information to U-Boot. An example of > > > +such a property would be the public key being passed to U-Boot for > > > +verification. > > > > It has nothing to do with describing hardware. The DT can describe > > other things too. See the /options node, for example. > > > > Please don't bring this highly misleading language into U-Boot. > > Please point out what is misleading in the above paragraph. What is > being emphasised in the above paragraph is that certain nodes and > properties in the devicetree are relevant only in u-boot, and not the > kernel. And this is precisely what the devicetree maintainers are > saying [1]. > > > > > > + > > > +This devicetree can then be passed to the OS. Since certain nodes and > > > +properties are not really describing hardware, and more importantly, > > > +these are only relevant to U-Boot, bindings for these cannot be > > > +upstreamed into the devicetree repository. There have been instances > > > +of attempts being made to upstream such bindings, and these deemed not > > > +fit for upstreaming. > > > > Then either they should not be in U-Boot, or there is a problem with > > the process. > > > > > Not having a binding for these nodes and > > > +properties means that the devicetree fails the schema compliance tests > > > +[1]. This also means that the platform cannot get certifications like > > > +SystemReady [2] which, among other things require a devicetree which > > > +passes the schema compliance tests. > > > + > > > +For such nodes and properties, it has been suggested by the devicetree > > > +maintainers that the right thing to do is to remove them from the > > > +devicetree before it gets passed on to the OS [3]. > > > > Hard NAK. If we go this way, then no one will ever have an incentive > > to do the right thing. > > > > Please send bindings for Linaro's work, instead. If something is > > entirely U-Boot-specific, then it can go in /options/u-boot but it > > still must be in the dt-schema. > > Please re-read the document including the last link [1]. If you go > through that entire thread, you will notice that this is precisely > what Linaro was trying to do here -- upstream the binding for the > fwu-mdata node. It is only based on the feedback of the devicetree > maintainers that this patchset was required. > > -sughosh > > [1] - > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/cal_jsqjn4fehoml7z3yj0wj9bpx1ose7zf26l_gv2os6cg-...@mail.gmail.com/#t
Please note that this right here, that the explanation of why we need to delete this node, not being a bright shiny visible object is one of the big problems with this patchset and implementation. It cannot be footnotes in email threads as to why such-and-such node/property isn't upstream, it needs to be documented and visible in the code base / documentation and an obvious you must do this for future cases. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
