* Re: Are dt-bindings headers part of the device tree spec?
[not found] <c670a4cc-b234-03d4-adfb-e6a8560c2d86@gmail.com>
@ 2021-12-15 16:11 ` Tom Rini
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2021-12-15 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sean Anderson, devicetree, Rob Herring
Cc: U Boot, Simon Glass, François Ozog, Mark Kettenis,
Oleksandr Andrushchenko, Weijie Gao, Ilias Apalodimas,
Heinrich Schuchardt
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1060 bytes --]
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 10:53:26AM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm reviewing a clock driver [1], and the submitter has deviated from
> the defines used by Linux. For example, where Linux might have
>
> #define CLOCK_FOOBAR 5
>
> his driver might have
>
> #define CLK_FUBAR 6
>
> Which means that both the device tree source and the resulting device
> tree binary will be different.
>
> As I understand it, we try to be compatible with Linux on these things.
> However, it is unclear to me if include/dt-bindings is also part of
> this, or just the things in Documentation/devicetree/bindings. And if it
> is, do we need to have compatible sources, compatible binaries, or both?
> In general, I think we should try to have the same headers as well, but
> is it permitted to allow deviations with reasonable justification?
>
> --Sean
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/de6e75a083647dfeec3058dd4dcc0419b08e155c.1637285375.git.weijie.gao@mediatek.com/
Adding a few more people to the thread.
--
Tom
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread