From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] dm: serial: Update binding for PL01x serial UART Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:02:58 -0600 Message-ID: <55CCBFB2.7050301@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1438954951-13329-1-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <1438954951-13329-2-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Simon Glass , Linus Walleij Cc: Grant Likely , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Arnd Bergmann , Rob Herring , U-Boot Mailing List , Stephen Warren , Joe Hershberger , Masahiro Yamada , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Marek Vasut , Pavel Herrmann , Vikas Manocha , Geert Uytterhoeven List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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:-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:02:58 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 01/11] dm: serial: Update binding for PL01x serial UART In-Reply-To: References: <1438954951-13329-1-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <1438954951-13329-2-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> Message-ID: <55CCBFB2.7050301@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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:-)