On 04/12/2023 15:38, ff wrote: > > >> Le 4 déc. 2023 à 12:00, Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> a écrit >> : >> >> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:02:57AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: >>> + Linux kernel DT bindings maintainers, EBBR ML >>> >>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 at 20:05, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 01:02:25PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 22:06, Neil Armstrong <neil.armstr...@linaro.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I've been thinking about and hacking on this for the last week or so, >>>>>>> sorry for the delayed reply here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The value is in preventing any of the existing bindings from regressing, >>>>> >>>>> That is actually best addressed in Linux by checking the DTS against >>>>> yaml DT bindings. We don't have that testing available in u-boot and >>>>> only depend on careful reviews. >>>> >>>> I would absolutely love for someone to make another attempt at updating >>>> our kbuild infrastucture so that we can run the validation targets. >>>> >>> >>> Given that EBBR requires [1] the platform (firmware/bootloader) and >>> not OS to supply the devicetree, it becomes evident that >>> firmware/bootloaders import DTS from Linux kernel (where it is >>> maintained). >>> >>> But currently u-boot doesn't have a proper way to validate those DTS >>> against DT bindings (maintained in Linux kernel). Although there are >>> Devicetree schema tools available here [2], there isn't a versioned >>> release package of DT bindings which one should use to validate DTS >>> files. >> >> The kernel is regularly released in multiple forms (including git >> tags and tarball). Why isn't the kernel itself sufficient to be a >> versioned release of the DT bindings directory? >> > The Linux kernel may not see all devices. For instance it could see a PCI > port while the firmware sees a SERDES that is configured to match the board > implementation and touting. The firmware shall be responsible to, statically > or dynamically make those things available to the kernel. > An OS distribution (not necessarily Linux) should not embedded all possible > combinations and know all derived boards.
Which is nothing related to the discussion here: bindings. The bindings *MUST* cover PCI port and serdes. P.S. Please wrap your replies to match mailing list style / netiquette. Best regards, Krzysztof