On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 04:52:22PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > Since the proposed PMIC patches have been accepted, I see the need > > to convert boards which I maintain to use DM drivers instead of board hacks. > > > > Svyatoslav Ryhel (5): > > board: lg-x3: convert LG Optimus 4X and Vu to use DM PMIC > > board: endeavoru: convert HTC One X to use DM PMIC > > Is there a reason why the two above devices don't appear to have their > .dts files in the upstream kernel? >
Yes, there is a reason. Linux maintainers treat submitters as existential enemies or as dirt at least. I was trying to work with linux but I have no desire to spend any time to upstream endeavoru or lg_x3.
The usual policy for acceptance into U-Boot is to have upstream review in the kernel first.
May you point to a policy which clearly and explicitly states this as a mandatory condition?
There have been a number of devices rejected in the past until their DT are upstream but I'll leave Tom, who I've explicitly added on cc:, to clarify the exact policy.
Well, here is where it's tricky. I brought this up for one of the Broadcom MIPS platforms a week or two back, and Linus Walleij's point (and I'm paraphrasing) is there's not really an upstream for it to go.
What we cannot have is device tree bindings[1] that aren't upstream or worse yet conflict with the official bindings.
So the general way to resolve that is have device tree file be drop-in from the linux kernel, and what additions we must have be done via -u-boot.dtsi files. And in turn, some SoCs are better about keeping in sync with the kernel than other SoCs are.
Now, upstream being actively hostile to dts files, especially for older platforms? That's unfortunate. So long as we aren't violating the rules about bindings, the intention is that we don't have device trees that are either (a) massively out of sync with the kernel[2] or (b) kept intentionally mismatched from the kernel.
I don't believe I've seen upstream Tegra maintainers being actively hostile towards updates for older devices, I know they have certainly defocused them, but I'm not sure that's what I'd consider hostile.
No objections from me on upstreaming older devices in Linux. I used to be able to test most of the older devices, but many of which I used to have direct access to are now defunct (for varying reasons). So I will have to rely on the community for testing etc. since I cannot scale to the point where I personally have all of these devices.
Now, I don't think that's hostile and if I ever came across as hostile I'm sorry. The intent was never to reject device support. Obviously the Linux kernel has high standards and sometimes that can be off-putting, but I don't think we've ever asked for anything out of the ordinary.
Thierry