On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 04:41:43PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 16:39, Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> wrote: [snip] > > I don't think we should decide what to do here based on said > > certification program. It can adapt to what's decided. Probably, the > > /option nodes will be stripped out or ignored for certification. > > > > I accepted u-boot options node schema into dtschema, but now have > > second thoughts on that. Now I'm getting more u-boot specific > > (perhaps, not clear) stuff and widevine stuff internal to a TEE. > > Where should these bindings go such that ARM / Linaro are not trying > to remove them? I would be OK with moving them out somewhere else, but > how are people supposed to deal with such fragmentation? My > understanding was that dt-schema was an attempt to set up a neutral > area where bindings could be accepted that were not just for > Linux...did that change?
Well, part of the problem here is that I've been talking with Ilias more about what's intended here and the fwu-* stuff that Rob rejected is indeed not right. We should drop it and replace it with something that really addresses the underlying problem (which is how do you know how/where to find some GUIDs) and I think we think it's something that can be shared between projects too and so be easier to convince Rob that the next form of it is right (or the right direction). -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
