On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:39:28AM +0000, manikanda...@microchip.com wrote: > Hi Sumit, > > On 06/03/25 12:30 pm, Sumit Garg wrote: > > [Some people who received this message don't often get email from > > sumit.g...@kernel.org. Learn why this is important at > > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the > > content is safe > > > > Hi Manikandan, > > > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 11:37:04AM +0530, Manikandan Muralidharan wrote: > >> Rename the include at91.h to at91-pmc-status.h to avoid conflicts with > >> the upstream bindings that has the same file and update the > >> relevant legacy SoC Device Trees to reflect this change. > >> This is useful while compiling the DT and driver of the new SoC files with > >> OF_UPSTREAM enabled. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Manikandan Muralidharan <manikanda...@microchip.com> > >> --- > >> MAINTAINERS | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/at91-sama7g5ek-u-boot.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/at91sam9260.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/at91sam9261.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/at91sam9263.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/at91sam9g45.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/at91sam9n12.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/at91sam9rl.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/sama5d3.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/sama5d3_mci2.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/sama5d3_tcb1.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/sama5d3_uart.dtsi | 2 +- > >> arch/arm/dts/sama5d4.dtsi | 2 +- > >> include/dt-bindings/clock/{at91.h => at91-pmc-status.h} | 0 > >> 15 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > >> rename include/dt-bindings/clock/{at91.h => at91-pmc-status.h} (100%) > >> > > > > AFAICS, include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h is just a subset of > > dts/upstream/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h. If that's true then we > > should just be able to drop local include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h from > > U-Boot tree. Won't that just work fine? > > > Yes, you're right. It's a subset of the upstream at91.h. However, we > must retain it due to dependencies with legacy SoC files that haven't > yet been migrated to OF_UPSTREAM. I believe migrating those files now > would introduce a significant number of changes w.r.t Device Tree files." >
It's not required for SoCs to be migrated to OF_UPSTREAM to start using upstream bindings. The DT bindings headers are meant to be stable and reusable such that we don't have to maintain duplicated headers. -Sumit
