On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 07:15, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > On 10/3/24 9:58 AM, Sumit Garg wrote: > > [...] > > >>> IMHO, the OF_UPSTREAM migration can wait until all the required DT > >>> sources (.dts and .dtso) are present upstream. If we start to mix and > >>> match DT sources then it is going to turn into maintainers' hardship > >>> again. However, I am still open to further convincing arguments for > >>> this. > >> With some Linux kernel architectures, it takes months to get a singular > >> patch review out of the maintainers. > > > > Okay I see the pain but we already have that rule for .dts files for > > OF_UPSTREAM switch but having a different rule for .dtso files is > > going to make maintainability complex. > > What kind of rule is that ? > > If the rule for .dts files is either dts/upstream or arch/*/dts, then > the rule for .dtso is either dts/upstream+fallback to arch/*/dts or only > arch/*/dts .
Yeah that the rule difference we will have after this patch for .dtso but I can live with that given it being gated behind the Kconfig option below. > > > The Linux kernel > > sub-architecture maintainers remain the same for both .dts and .dtso > > files. > > Well, yes. > > >> For systems which already have DTs > >> upstream and only have DTOs left, the OF_UPSTREAM conversion and DTO > >> upstreaming can be done in parallel, hence expedite the process. > > > > Fair enough, let's try to find a middle ground to gate the local DTOs > > behind a config to make the use of local DTOs explicit. How about > > CONFIG_OF_UPSTREAM_LOCAL_DTOS? > Do you think another Kconfig option is really necessary ? I don't mind > adding one if you think that would make a difference, but I don't see it > as strictly necessary. Yeah I think it will make explicit the usage of local DTOs vs upstream DTOs. -Sumit
