On 22/12/2023 16:46, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 22/12/2023 14:43, Sumit Garg wrote: >>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 13:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> <krzysztof.kozlow...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 22/12/2023 07:12, Sumit Garg wrote: >>>>> Changes in v2: >>>>> -------------- >>>>> - Patch #1: excluded gitab CI config check and added commit description. >>>>> - Patch #3: s/UBOOT_DTSI_LOC/u_boot_dtsi_loc/ >>>>> - Patch #4: s/DEVICE_TREE_LOC/dt_dir/ and s/U-boot/U-Boot/ >>>>> - Patch #5: s/U-boot/U-Boot/ >>>>> - Patch #6 and #7: Picked up review tags >>>>> >>>>> Prerequisite >>>>> ------------ >>>>> >>>>> This patch series requires devicetree-rebasing git repo to be added as a >>>>> subtree to the main U-Boot repo via: >>>>> >>>>> $ git subtree add --prefix devicetree-rebasing \ >>>>> >>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git >>>>> \ >>>>> v6.6-dts --squash >>>>> >>>>> Background >>>>> ---------- >>>>> >>>>> This effort started while I was reviewing patch series corresponding to >>>>> Qcom platforms [1] which was about to import modified devicetree source >>>>> files from Linux kernel. I suppose keeping devicetree files sync with >>>>> Linux kernel without any DT bindings schema validation has been a pain >>>>> for U-Boot SoC/platform maintainers. There has been past discussions >>>>> about a single DT repo but that hasn't come up and Linux kernel remained >>>>> the place where DT source files as well as bindings are placed and >>>>> maintained. >>>> >>>> Thanks for doing this. >>>> >>>> I really suggest to store information that kernel DTS is directly >>>> re-used, thus DTS backward and forward compatibility matters, also in >>>> Linux kernel sources. The point is that sub-arch maintainers should be >>>> aware of it. I don't think that as DT maintainers we can efficiently >>>> keep an eye on it. Maybe create a subsystem profile and include it to >>>> maintainer entries of such affected platforms? >>>> >>> >>> From U-Boot point of view, currently we have the config option: >>> "CONFIG_OF_UPSTREAM=y" per platform which means directly re-use of >>> kernel DTS. So U-Boot sub-arch maintainers should be aware of >>> platforms which get converted to re-use kernel DTS. >> >> I was speaking about kernel. >> >>> >>> I suppose we have to relay information to kernel sub-arch maintainers >>> who aren't the same as maintaining U-Boot counterparts. How about >>> adding U-Boot ML to CC for whichever DT change gets submitted in the >> >> And every other project? Just setup lei filters. >> >>> kernel? Otherwise adding U-Boot sub-arch maintainers as reviewers for >>> corresponding kernel DT changes works too if that's acceptable. >> >> You just entirely ignored my proposal without addressing it... ok let it >> be. No, CC-ing U-boot maintainers changes nothing because as I said, I >> want kernel maintainers and contributors to be aware. > > Maybe an underlying question is, what kernel maintainers aren't aware, > but should have been already? Then we can figure out how to address
None of them is aware. > that. For example, with your Samsung hat on you weren't aware that > exynos 4/5/7 DTS files are cared about by U-Boot, but are now aware. Hm, I am still not aware of this. I mean, you wrote it above, but it is the first time I see using directly usptream DTS for U-Boot on Samsung platforms. Did anyone test it actually? I certainly did not. I think this patchset did not remove U-Boot-tree Samsung DTS, did it? Best regards, Krzysztof