From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 12:32:37 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] tegra: dts: Sync seaboard device tree file with Linux In-Reply-To: <1452803219-16675-2-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> References: <1452803219-16675-1-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> <1452803219-16675-2-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org> Message-ID: <569D3DD5.102@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 01/14/2016 01:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Sync everything except the display panel, which will come in a future patch. > One USB port is left disabled since we don't want to support it in U-Boot. It would be useful to mention which version of Linux this DT content came from. BTW, this series (at least this patch) seems to have a significant number of "git am" conflicts when I try to apply it to either v2016.01 or u-boot/master as of today. Consequently I can't apply it to test it. Which commit/branch is it based on? > diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/tegra20-seaboard.dts b/arch/arm/dts/tegra20-seaboard.dts > + pinmux at 70000014 { > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + pinctrl-0 = <&state_default>; I agree that the DT content that's common between U-Boot's and Linux's copies of the DT files should be identical. However, I wonder if it makes sense to include nodes (and perhaps even properties) in U-Boot's DT that U-Boot doesn't use. I can see the argument that keeping the files identical is easier to track and remove any differences. However, I'd also argue that keeping the U-Boot DT files lean (i.e. only containing the nodes U-Boot uses) will allow easier determination of exactly what parts of the DT U-Boot uses, and hence perhaps highlight any parts that might still need conversion.