On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Ian Lepore <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 14:48 +0100, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Boris Brezillon >> <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > Hello Grant, >> > >> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:39:51 +0100 >> > Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > Kernel Summit is now just over 2 weeks away and it is time to pull >> > > together the schedule for the Devicetree workshop. Originally I >> > > planned on just an afternoon, but I've got the room for the whole day, >> > > so I've got a lot of flexibility on the schedule. Unscheduled time can >> > > be used for hacking. >> > > >> > > Date: 26 Oct 2017 >> > > Time: 9:00am-5:30pm (Lunch from 12:30-2:30) >> > > Location: Athens room - Hilton Prague >> > > >> > > If you plan to attend, make sure you update your OSSunmitE/ELCE >> > > registration to include the DT Workshop (log in to access and modify >> > > your registration): >> > > >> > > https://www.regonline.com/register/login.aspx?eventID=1883377&MethodId=0&EventsessionId=&Email_Address=&membershipID= >> > > >> > > Here is my current list of topics in no particular order, including >> > > the topic moderator: >> > > >> > > Runtime memory consumption (Rob Herring) >> > > Overlay maintenance plan (TBC) >> > > Stable ABI for devicetree (TBC) >> > > DT YAML encoding (Pantelis Antoniou) >> > > DT Schema format - option 1 (Pantelis Antoniou) >> > > DT Schema format - option 2 (Grant Likely) >> > > Sharing Generic bindings (TBC) >> > > devicetree.org update (Grant) >> > > >> > > Reply to this email if you want to propose another topic. >> > Not sure yet if I'll attend the DT workshop or not, but I thought I >> > could ask my question here because it might be of interest to someone >> > else who is attending. >> > >> > What happens when the DT bindings is not documented in Linux but in an >> > another project because this project was the first to use it. >> > >> > I had the case here http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/810275/, and I'm >> > not sure what's the policy when this happens. Should we add a file >> > under Documentation/devicetree/bindings/... that points to the external >> > doc file, should we duplicate the DT bindings doc in Linux, or should >> > we just leave the bindings undocumented in the kernel tree? >> I'm going to add this as a topic. I've got my own opinion, but it >> would be better to discuss in the room because it affects maintainers. >> >> g. > > > I've run into the same thing in FreeBSD. We use bindings and dts > files, exacted periodically from the linux tree and imported into ours, > for all modern arm boards/systems. Several times I've created drivers > for small things like i2c RTC chips that aren't supported currently by > linux, and it's not clear to me that it's even possible to submit > bindings and dts for them back upstream without also submitting a linux > driver that uses them (which of course I'm not in a position to do). I will happily take bindings and would like to dispel this myth. Send them to the DT list and just make it clear there's no Linux driver so I know to pick it up if any subsystem maintainers won't (though I'd suspect that most will). dts files are a bit more complicated as I generally don't take those. But please force the issue. If no non-Linux developer submits dts changes, then it is certainly true that dts changes aren't accepted. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree-spec" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
