On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 13:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlow...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 22/12/2023 07:12, Sumit Garg wrote: > > Changes in v2: > > -------------- > > - Patch #1: excluded gitab CI config check and added commit description. > > - Patch #3: s/UBOOT_DTSI_LOC/u_boot_dtsi_loc/ > > - Patch #4: s/DEVICE_TREE_LOC/dt_dir/ and s/U-boot/U-Boot/ > > - Patch #5: s/U-boot/U-Boot/ > > - Patch #6 and #7: Picked up review tags > > > > Prerequisite > > ------------ > > > > This patch series requires devicetree-rebasing git repo to be added as a > > subtree to the main U-Boot repo via: > > > > $ git subtree add --prefix devicetree-rebasing \ > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git > > \ > > v6.6-dts --squash > > > > Background > > ---------- > > > > This effort started while I was reviewing patch series corresponding to > > Qcom platforms [1] which was about to import modified devicetree source > > files from Linux kernel. I suppose keeping devicetree files sync with > > Linux kernel without any DT bindings schema validation has been a pain > > for U-Boot SoC/platform maintainers. There has been past discussions > > about a single DT repo but that hasn't come up and Linux kernel remained > > the place where DT source files as well as bindings are placed and > > maintained. > > Thanks for doing this. > > I really suggest to store information that kernel DTS is directly > re-used, thus DTS backward and forward compatibility matters, also in > Linux kernel sources. The point is that sub-arch maintainers should be > aware of it. I don't think that as DT maintainers we can efficiently > keep an eye on it. Maybe create a subsystem profile and include it to > maintainer entries of such affected platforms? >
>From U-Boot point of view, currently we have the config option: "CONFIG_OF_UPSTREAM=y" per platform which means directly re-use of kernel DTS. So U-Boot sub-arch maintainers should be aware of platforms which get converted to re-use kernel DTS. I suppose we have to relay information to kernel sub-arch maintainers who aren't the same as maintaining U-Boot counterparts. How about adding U-Boot ML to CC for whichever DT change gets submitted in the kernel? Otherwise adding U-Boot sub-arch maintainers as reviewers for corresponding kernel DT changes works too if that's acceptable. -Sumit > Best regards, > Krzysztof > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
