On 08/13/2015 09:59 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Linus,
On 11 August 2015 at 07:00, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This binding differs from that of Linux. Update it and change existing
users.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
(...)
doc/device-tree-bindings/serial/pl01x.txt | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
So why does U-Boot have its own copy of any bindings at all?
This is forking the ontology of who gets to define bindings I fear.
It's a bit like have two bibles both claiming to be the word of god.
(OK maybe a hyperbolic statement, but you see what I mean.)
Can't we just have the bindings in the Linux kernel tree please?
Is there any plan to move them out of Linux and put them in a separate place?
We should make an effort to sync the device tree files with Linux periodically.
I quite like having the bindings in U-Boot since it makes people think
about what they are adding. Are you worried that the bindings in
U-Boot might evolve separately? Certainly there has been some of that.
However I recently sent a series to add a few things for Raspberry Pi
("arm: rpi: Device tree modifications for U-Boot") and I don't yet see
a willingness to add what some see as 'U-Boot things' to the binding.
How do we address that?
DT isn't supposed to contain "U-Boot things", but "an OS-agnostic
description of the hardware". So, I imagine the solution is not to
attempt to do that:-)
--
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
