> Le 4 déc. 2023 à 14:25, Sumit Garg <sumit.g...@linaro.org> a écrit : > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 at 16:30, Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> >>> 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? >> > > The Linux kernel may come in various forms (upstream vs stable vs > vendor). It's difficult to decide from where the DT bindings should > come from. Should they come from upstream or should they come from the > kernel which is actually booted onto a particular device? > Looks bad from organizing forward portability standpoint .
> IOW, as of now which kernel version should u-boot pick up for DT > validation checks? > > If we can have a separate release cadence for DT bindings then the > platform (firmware/bootloader) can attest the DTB against that. Later > one should be able to boot any kernel with the DTB provided by > platform. > That seems a very good step! > -Sumit > >> >> Daniel. > _______________________________________________ > boot-architecture mailing list -- boot-architect...@lists.linaro.org > To unsubscribe send an email to boot-architecture-le...@lists.linaro.org
