On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:47:56AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/04/2014 04:43 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
On 1 August 2014 15:50, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
...
DT schemas/bindings MUST be identical between U-Boot, Linux, FreeBSD, Barebox, ... (all of which use DT). As such, all the DT bindings MUST be discussed on the devicetree mailing list.
Since you're the author of the patch, it's your responsibility to have that discussion.
Are you referring to the linux,stdout-path discussion, or something more DT-generic?I suppose we could have a 'u-boot,console' for our part. But in any case you are talking about code and a convention that is already in mainline U-Boot.
I'm saying that any and all additions or changes to DT schemas/bindings must be discussed on the devicetree mailing list, not made/reviewed in isolation on only the U-Boot mailing list.
While I accept that we might change to something DT-generic if Linux points the way to something better, I don't want to stop using it just because Linux hasn't decided yet. The early console stuff and early debug UART stuff in Linux is not yet a shining example of perfection.
I strongly believe that if U-Boot continues to use DT, the current DT usage in U-Boot needs to be actively moved in line with the bindings that the Linux kernel, Barebox, FreeBSD, ... use. I'd prefer this to happen even before U-Boot starts making additional use of DT, so the conversion doesn't get forgotten. However, I suppose it's a bit draconian to prevent further usage until the existing usage is cleaned up, except where new usage introduces additional dependencies on any current usage that's inconsistent with the standard bindings.
I don't disagree (and at ELC I was trying to see who, if anyone, had been reaching out to the FreeBSD folks since their DT files were very far from what Linux uses afaict for am33xx), but I'm also not seeing anything from non-Linux kernel folks on the devicetrees ML, or at least my quick search failed.