Re: (subset) [PATCH v6 0/6] OpenRISC de0 nano single and multicore boards

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 16/01/2026 17:36, Stafford Horne wrote:
>>> It seems a bit messy, Maybe I should just wait for the next cycle.  But if you
>>
>> There is no mess, you do not have to wait for anything. Please follow
>> standard rules like we follow for all other SoC-based architectures
>> (arm, arm64, riscv).
>>
>> What happens when you apply *independently* DTS? What is broken, which
>> was not broken so far? What features stop working? What existing DTS is
>> affected? What existing code is doing worse than before?
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> You are right, there is no build time dependency here only a dependency at
> runtime.  Also the dtbs_check will warn about missing "opencores,gpio" bindings
> for the new soc devicestrees on my branch.  Now, I understand that is no issue.

That warning is expected and everything is "fine" as long as linux-next
does not have it. "Fine" as a meaning part of current process, but far
from optimal. But you should not pull the drivers into DTS branch just
to solve it. You could pull only the binding file, although no one does
it currently just for that (there was such proposal and Rob did not
immediately reject it so maybe that's where it could go).



Best regards,
Krzysztof