On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:02:58AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 08/13/2015 09:59 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > >Hi Linus, > > > >On 11 August 2015 at 07:00, Linus Walleij wrote: > >>On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > >> > >>>This binding differs from that of Linux. Update it and change existing > >>>users. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > >>(...) > >>> 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:-) This always makes me ask if the FreeBSD folks or VxWorks folks have adopted the "Linux" bindings or if the DT files continue to be "OS-agnostic" and "only functional with Linux". It was a while ago last I looked but it made my head hurt a little doing a quick translation for an SoC that I was familiar with. -- Tom