On 16/01/2026 17:36, Stafford Horne wrote: >>> It seems a bit messy, Maybe I should just wait for the next cycle. But if >>> you >> >> There is no mess, you do not have to wait for anything. Please follow >> standard rules like we follow for all other SoC-based architectures >> (arm, arm64, riscv). >> >> What happens when you apply *independently* DTS? What is broken, which >> was not broken so far? What features stop working? What existing DTS is >> affected? What existing code is doing worse than before? > > Hi Krzysztof, > > You are right, there is no build time dependency here only a dependency at > runtime. Also the dtbs_check will warn about missing "opencores,gpio" > bindings > for the new soc devicestrees on my branch. Now, I understand that is no > issue.
That warning is expected and everything is "fine" as long as linux-next does not have it. "Fine" as a meaning part of current process, but far from optimal. But you should not pull the drivers into DTS branch just to solve it. You could pull only the binding file, although no one does it currently just for that (there was such proposal and Rob did not immediately reject it so maybe that's where it could go). Best regards, Krzysztof
