On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 01:49:44PM +0200, 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. Yeah, it's on Thursday, right? - Moritz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
