On Mon 12 Apr 13:52 CDT 2021, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 6:01 PM Bjorn Andersson > <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon 12 Apr 08:14 CDT 2021, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 1:32 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 5:08 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > So the same binding patch is picked up both in the driver and soc tree? > > I was expecting that to cause (harmless) conflicts when things arrive in > > Linus' merge queue? > > > > Or are you saying people go the length to create immutable branches for > > each binding? > > I think it's usually one immutable branch for all the bindings of a given > merge window. This avoids the merge conflicts, and you can add further > bindings on the same branch before sending it off to the soc tree. > That would be convenient to have, but the binding changes we depend on in a given window (in particular if dtbs_check is expected to pass) is scattered over a wide range of maintainer trees. > > I'm curious because it's fairly often that we introduce clocks, > > interconnects etc where the macros from the dt bindings includes aren't > > available for another release (so we use numerical constants and then go > > back and fix them up later). > > Ah right, it is particularly bad for platforms that don't have a regular > layout in these blocks and need to define a new constant every time > another clock/reset/pin/... is discovered in the downstream sources. > Even blocks following some standardized layout has this problem, because each platform will have it's own (often similar) set of clocks/resets/pins. And going back to dtbs_check, you will continue to see the warnings about missing compatibles, because most of the case they won't end up in the soc tree. > I was mainly referring to the simpler problem of defining a binding > document for a device once, and then merging the nodes. > I'm sure we all love the hardware that's simple to translate to a DT binding, unfortunately though we're dealing with complex SoCs. Regards, Bjorn
