Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] State of dt-bindings and DT source files, and invitation request

["Arınç ÜNAL" <arinc.unal@arinc9.com>]

On 12/09/2024 20:05, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 04:01:20PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
>> On 11/09/2024 00:53, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 10:46:03AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 5:53 AM Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>
>>>>> I maintain the MediaTek DSA subdriver and some devicetree bindings and
>>>>> source files for MediaTek hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am especially interested in the best practices of maintaining dt-bindings
>>>>> and DT source files.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's this false impression with some maintainers that, as the
>>>>> dt-bindings and the DT source files are being hosted on the Linux
>>>>> repository, Linux drivers have influence over the design of bindings or
>>>
>>>>> fixing DT source files that did not comply with the bindings.
>>>
>>> What does "fixing DT source files that did not comply" have to do with
>>> Linux, I'm afraid I do not understand what your point is there. The
>>> bindings are the ABI, and fixing incorrect source files would happen
>>> regardless of how the project is hosted?
>>
>> That's exactly what I think. I had a maintainer that argued otherwise is my
>> point. Which is why I want to strengthen the Linux documentation.
> 
> On a bunch of older platforms it's pretty common that the bindings were
> lacklustre or didn't match the devicetree and kernel source code, and in
> those cases (which are almost always text bindings) two outweighs one.
> Ordinarily though, if the kernel or dts don't match the binding they get
> adjusted, and if there are maintainers resisting this, then point them
> our way.
> 
> If things have been wrong for enough time for it to affect users,
> usually the correct thing to do is fix the kernel to support the
> incorrect as well as the correct. The same, however, goes for other
> projects: if something long established is being fixed, the other users
> need to be accounted for, particularly those that automatically import
> from the devicetree-rebasing repository.

The users in mention are the Linux kernel users, of course. So a maintainer
must not demand patches fixing the kernel to support the incorrect to be
submitted before accepting device tree patches; do we agree? This is what I
mean when I say complete autonomy from the Linux kernel development.

Arınç