On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 06:50:19PM +0000, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 18:34 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Looking at the git log for arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm, most updates are > > simply adding new descriptions, so a DTB from a year ago should work > > just fine with mainline (modulo the Juno PCI window issue, which was a > > DTB bug). Upgrading kernel shouldn't require a DTB upgrade to see > > equivalent functionality. > > But if you want the new functionality in the kernel, why should you be > forced to wait for the bootloader to catch up (or do that work yourself) > then upgrade to that new bootloader version? And what about the poor > devs working on that new functionality, they're going to need to use not > upstream device-trees. Then there's all the firmware and system > configuration stuff that's in device-tree.
Developers working on low-level stuff will always need to be able to override/upgrade/etc. I am certainly not arguing to remove those capabilities. The key point is that it is possible to provide a baseline DTB that is good enough for most users, and will work with future kernels. We're unlikely to get to a state where DTBs are perfect and complete from day one. We can have something that remains usable. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot