Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] dm: serial: Update binding for PL01x serial UART

From: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger@ni.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] dm: serial: Update binding for PL01x serial UART
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:13:46 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150813181346.GS25532@bill-the-cat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55CCBFB2.7050301@wwwdotorg.org>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2057 bytes --]

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 <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>This binding differs from that of Linux. Update it and change existing
> >>>users.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >>(...)
> >>>  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

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 134 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot