[U-Boot] [PATCH v7 5/9] arm: serial: Add ability to use pre-initialized UARTs

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 06:44:25AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> On 19 October 2015 at 01:15, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> On 16 October 2015 at 15:23, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> Again: get this merged in the Linux kernel FIRST. Is it?
> >>
> >> We had a little bit of a chat about this at ELCE. It would be great to
> >> get these changes merged with the kernel but the amount of
> >> push-back/energy it requires is still excessive IMO. Any thoughts?
> >
> > I'm sorry but DT is standardization, and while I know how stinky it is to
> > be first somewhere and having to pave the road for everyone else,
> > in the long run it's worth it. I think when we switched the entire kernel
> > to DT it was to get "more order", and this is the cost that comes with
> > that order: more review.
> >
> > I will go in and answer the comment on the DT mailing list so there is
> > some push atleast.
> 
> Perhaps if we could see some movement then it would provide
> encouragement to continue. So far I cannot recall seeing a single
> U-Boot device tree change accepted in the 4 years I've been involved.
> That's not to say it hasn't happened, and I hope it is just a
> reflection on my memory rather than the difficulty level.

I think there's a few things that need to be kept in mind.  First, the
DT world is changing compared to where it was a year ago, and even more
so since August or so (LPC?).  There should be less of a stuck in limbo
problem.  The second is that since we aren't using DT as free-form
replacement for values shoved in a C header, it is a lot more work to
get things agreed to and merged with our upstream here.  And third (and
maybe this is where devicetree-spec at vger.kernel.org comes in) is that if
this is really going to be some useful and OS-agnostic description of
the hardware then yes, we do need some way to say 'here is what the
clock freq is once released from ROM'.

All of that said, maybe "no re-init of console port" is not quite right
for the UART node (maybe a property of the stdout-path to note this
condition as Rob suggests).

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20151019/460c60ab/attachment.sig>