On 10/06/2017 04:49 AM, Michal Simek wrote: > On 26.9.2017 20:15, Philip Balister wrote: >> On 09/26/2017 02:06 PM, Michal Simek wrote: >>> On 26.9.2017 19:58, Philip Balister wrote: >>>> On 09/26/2017 01:50 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote: >>>>> Michal, >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 02:54:48PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 25.9.2017 18:11, Moritz Fischer wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:19:44AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Moritz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sorry for delay. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12.9.2017 01:22, Moritz Fischer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Add support for the National Instruments Project Sulfur SDR >>>>>>>>> motherboards Rev 2,3 and 4. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <mdf@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile | 3 + >>>>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev2.dts | 84 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev3.dts | 118 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev4.dts | 26 ++++++ >>>>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur.dtsi | 133 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>> 5 files changed, 364 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev2.dts >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev3.dts >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev4.dts >>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur.dtsi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this publicly available board? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Will be in Q1 2018 was announced at GRCon'17 ([1]). >>>>>>> Some of the Rev3s are currently deployed in Norway as part of a radar >>>>>>> system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not quite sure we should apply these dts files. There are a lot of >>>>>>>> boards with zynq and there must be any strong argument for applying this >>>>>>>> to the tree. For arm32 with even flat tree structure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's the issue with merging them, except for having 3 more files? >>>>>> >>>>>> For me this is not a problem because on Linux side it is not increasing >>>>>> build time. >>>>>> I want to see the value for community. All xilinx platforms are >>>>>> evaluation generic purpose boards which are showing how to connect stuff >>>>>> together. >>>>>> On the other hand this is real product. >>>>> >>>>> Uh. >>>>> >>>>>> I would let arm-soc maintainer to decide if this is fine or not. I >>>>>> definitely don't want to end up in situation that we will have dts for >>>>>> real products which are not bringing any value for others. >>>>> >>>>> Sure, it's the maintainers call. >>>>> >>>>> I do intend to have my customers run mainline on it eventually, currently >>>>> I'm a handful of patches away from making that happen. So yes, running >>>>> mainline is a usecase that matters to me. >>>>> >>>>> It is one thing to keep bitching about vendor kernels as a community >>>>> continuously, but then if someone goes through the effort and actually >>>>> tries to run mainline, you give them crap like that above. >>>>> >>>>> Our products usually come with full schematics [1], firmware, fpga code and all >>>>> available, I don't know what makes them less useful to the community as a >>>>> platform to experiment and develop on than Xilinx eval boards. >>>>> >>>>> There's several people that I know of both hobbyists and companies that >>>>> build systems around these platforms, so I don't know ... >>>> >>>> I expect this product to be delivered with full source and a mainline >>>> kernel, so lets make it easy for Moritz to do the right thing here. This >>>> makes long term support of this product much easier. >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Philip Balister <philip@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I think this is the right way to go. Get ACK from Arnd or Olof or Kevin >>> and I will merge this. >>> I am simply just afraid that if a lot of zynq customers will ask for it >>> we can will end up with a lot of zynq/zynqmp based dts files in the >>> kernel and arm-soc guys will stop this that it is simply too much and >>> won't accept +1 case. >> >> I share the same concerns. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem like any >> other structured way to manage dts files. >> >> As an OpenEmbedded guy, I know I can carry them with BSP's, but not >> everyone uses OpenEmbedded. I'd love to see a long term scalable >> solution for tracking dts files, but that is outside the scope of >> Moritz's request. > > Are you guys coming to ELCE? There will be Devicetree Workshop which > will be good place to talk about this. Yes. When is the workshop? Philip > > Thanks, > Michal > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
