On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:02:57AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > + Linux kernel DT bindings maintainers, EBBR ML > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 at 20:05, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 01:02:25PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 22:06, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstr...@linaro.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > I've been thinking about and hacking on this for the last week or so, > > > > > sorry for the delayed reply here. > > > > > > > > > > The value is in preventing any of the existing bindings from > > > > > regressing, > > > > > > That is actually best addressed in Linux by checking the DTS against > > > yaml DT bindings. We don't have that testing available in u-boot and > > > only depend on careful reviews. > > > > I would absolutely love for someone to make another attempt at updating > > our kbuild infrastucture so that we can run the validation targets. > > > > Given that EBBR requires [1] the platform (firmware/bootloader) and > not OS to supply the devicetree, it becomes evident that > firmware/bootloaders import DTS from Linux kernel (where it is > maintained). > > But currently u-boot doesn't have a proper way to validate those DTS > against DT bindings (maintained in Linux kernel). Although there are > Devicetree schema tools available here [2], there isn't a versioned > release package of DT bindings which one should use to validate DTS > files.
The kernel is regularly released in multiple forms (including git tags and tarball). Why isn't the kernel itself sufficient to be a versioned release of the DT bindings directory? Daniel.
