Hi Jonas,
On Wed, 15 May 2024 at 13:11, Jonas Karlman jonas@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-... [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org/msg02162.htm...
-Sumit
Regards, Jonas