On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 04:55:54PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/12/2023 16:46, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 22/12/2023 14:43, Sumit Garg wrote: > >>> 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 was speaking about kernel. > >> > >>> > >>> 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 > >> > >> And every other project? Just setup lei filters. > >> > >>> kernel? Otherwise adding U-Boot sub-arch maintainers as reviewers for > >>> corresponding kernel DT changes works too if that's acceptable. > >> > >> You just entirely ignored my proposal without addressing it... ok let it > >> be. No, CC-ing U-boot maintainers changes nothing because as I said, I > >> want kernel maintainers and contributors to be aware. > > > > Maybe an underlying question is, what kernel maintainers aren't aware, > > but should have been already? Then we can figure out how to address > > None of them is aware. > > > that. For example, with your Samsung hat on you weren't aware that > > exynos 4/5/7 DTS files are cared about by U-Boot, but are now aware. > > Hm, I am still not aware of this. I mean, you wrote it above, but it is > the first time I see using directly usptream DTS for U-Boot on Samsung > platforms. > > Did anyone test it actually? I certainly did not. I think this patchset > did not remove U-Boot-tree Samsung DTS, did it?
With this literal patchset, only the amlogic platforms Sumit is changing have been tested, yes. In general, the U-Boot guideline has been "resync your DTS files from the kernel as often as possible" as well as "start with DTS files from the kernel, not hand-crafted". And some SoCs/vendors have been better about following these rules than others. There's a good number of commits under arch/arm/dts/ today syncing up with various states of v6.6. Which I guess emphasises my question, what kernel maintainers weren't aware that U-Boot has been consuming their DTS files as-is (as much as possible) for a number of years now? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
