Hi Jonas, On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 13:11, Jonas Karlman <jo...@kwiboo.se> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > On 2024-05-14 18:42, Tom Rini wrote:> > > git-subtree-dir: dts/upstream > > git-subtree-split: 7e08733c96c84eb323f47e9b248c924e2ac6272a > > --- > > This moves OF_UPSTREAM to be tracking the v6.9 release and is for the > > -next branch. To test these changes yourself locally, either use my > > "WIP/14May2024-next" branch or run: > > ./dts/update-dts-subtree.sh pull v6.9-dts > > yourself locally. I intend to wait a few days to apply this to -next, to > > give people time to test. > > > > There are currently more boards/SoCs that use OF_UPSTREAM in master > branch than in next branch, a few Rockchip SoCs and other boards/SoCs.
Glad to see more OF_UPSTREAM adoption. > Next dts/upstream sync will probably be good to do together with a merge > of master into next :-) I don't have any particular opinion here and rather leave it upto Tom how he would like to merge stuff. > > Also what is the expected sync cadence of dts/upstream? Linux v6.10 will > probably be released shortly after U-Boot v2024.07. So will next sync be > to v6.10-dts if that happens in the U-Boot merge window or do we expect > 2024.10 to use v6.9 DTs if the v6.10 release gets delayed and miss the > U-Boot merge window? > > Linux kernel typically have all major DT changes in -rc1 and fixes in > later -rcX, so for next branch I would suggest an early sync to a > v6.10-rcX-dts tag, and then sync to the final v6.10-dts tag once v6.10 > gets released. That should give more time for testing, migration and > cleanup using v6.10 DTs in time for a 2024.10 release. I can see the reasoning for an aggressive DT syncing approach, it has been brought up in the past too. And the major reason for the current moderate sync approach [1] is to limit any DT ABI breakages for U-Boot, we are even prone to breakages with syncs against major Linux kernel releases (eg. v6.10-dts etc.). It has been a long time discussion topic where we have been advocating about requirements for DT ABI stability [2]. So having DT syncs done during the merge window will shorten the testing window for developers/maintainers. And more syncs means a multiplicative factor for testing. However, time will tell with more and more platforms adopting OF_UPSTREAM, if there are any real DT ABI breakages seen in the future. But surely if they are very rare then I am open to adopting aggressive DT sync approaches. [1] https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/devicetree/control.html#resyncing-with-devicetree-rebasing [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org/msg02162.html -Sumit > > Regards, > Jonas
