Hi Stephen, On 18 January 2016 at 12:32, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: > On 01/14/2016 01:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Sync everything except the display panel, which will come in a future >> patch. >> One USB port is left disabled since we don't want to support it in U-Boot. > > > It would be useful to mention which version of Linux this DT content came > from. > > BTW, this series (at least this patch) seems to have a significant number of > "git am" conflicts when I try to apply it to either v2016.01 or > u-boot/master as of today. Consequently I can't apply it to test it. Which > commit/branch is it based on?
See u-boot-dm/rkf-working, which has all the patches. > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/tegra20-seaboard.dts >> b/arch/arm/dts/tegra20-seaboard.dts > > >> + pinmux@70000014 { >> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >> + pinctrl-0 = <&state_default>; > > > I agree that the DT content that's common between U-Boot's and Linux's > copies of the DT files should be identical. However, I wonder if it makes > sense to include nodes (and perhaps even properties) in U-Boot's DT that > U-Boot doesn't use. > > I can see the argument that keeping the files identical is easier to track > and remove any differences. > > However, I'd also argue that keeping the U-Boot DT files lean (i.e. only > containing the nodes U-Boot uses) will allow easier determination of exactly > what parts of the DT U-Boot uses, and hence perhaps highlight any parts that > might still need conversion. Indeed. I'm leaning towards including everything since it is simple. On tegra we don't use pinctrl so that is a waste, but it's not that huge. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot