Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm: dts: Add support for National Instruments Project Sulfur SDRs

[Moritz Fischer]

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 01:49:44PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 26.9.2017 20:15, Philip Balister wrote:
> > On 09/26/2017 02:06 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> On 26.9.2017 19:58, Philip Balister wrote:
> >>> On 09/26/2017 01:50 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote:
> >>>> Michal,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 02:54:48PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 25.9.2017 18:11, Moritz Fischer wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Michal,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:19:44AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Moritz
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> sorry for delay.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 12.9.2017 01:22, Moritz Fischer wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Add support for the National Instruments Project Sulfur SDR
> >>>>>>>> motherboards Rev 2,3 and 4.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer <mdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile                |   3 +
> >>>>>>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev2.dts |  84 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev3.dts | 118 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev4.dts |  26 ++++++
> >>>>>>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur.dtsi     | 133 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>  5 files changed, 364 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev2.dts
> >>>>>>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev3.dts
> >>>>>>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur-rev4.dts
> >>>>>>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-ni-sulfur.dtsi
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is this publicly available board?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Will be in Q1 2018 was announced at GRCon'17 ([1]).
> >>>>>> Some of the Rev3s are currently deployed in Norway as part of a radar
> >>>>>> system.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am not quite sure we should apply these dts files. There are a lot of
> >>>>>>> boards with zynq and there must be any strong argument for applying this
> >>>>>>> to the tree. For arm32 with even flat tree structure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What's the issue with merging them, except for having 3 more files? 
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For me this is not a problem because on Linux side it is not increasing
> >>>>> build time.
> >>>>> I want to see the value for community. All xilinx platforms are
> >>>>> evaluation generic purpose boards which are showing how to connect stuff
> >>>>> together.
> >>>>> On the other hand this is real product.
> >>>>
> >>>> Uh.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I would let arm-soc maintainer to decide if this is fine or not. I
> >>>>> definitely don't want to end up in situation that we will have dts for
> >>>>> real products which are not bringing any value for others.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, it's the maintainers call.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do intend to have my customers run mainline on it eventually, currently
> >>>> I'm a handful of patches away from making that happen. So yes, running
> >>>> mainline is a usecase that matters to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is one thing to keep bitching about vendor kernels as a community
> >>>> continuously, but then if someone goes through the effort and actually
> >>>> tries to run mainline, you give them crap like that above.
> >>>>
> >>>> Our products usually come with full schematics [1], firmware, fpga code and all
> >>>> available, I don't know what makes them less useful to the community as a
> >>>> platform to experiment and develop on than Xilinx eval boards.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's several people that I know of both hobbyists and companies that
> >>>> build systems around these platforms, so I don't know ...
> >>>
> >>> I expect this product to be delivered with full source and a mainline
> >>> kernel, so lets make it easy for Moritz to do the right thing here. This
> >>> makes long term support of this product much easier.
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Philip Balister <philip@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> I think this is the right way to go. Get ACK from Arnd or Olof or Kevin
> >> and I will merge this.
> >> I am simply just afraid that if a lot of zynq customers will ask for it
> >> we can will end up with a lot of zynq/zynqmp based dts files in the
> >> kernel and arm-soc guys will stop this that it is simply too much and
> >> won't accept +1 case.
> > 
> > I share the same concerns. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem like any
> > other structured way to manage dts files.
> > 
> > As an OpenEmbedded guy, I know I can carry them with BSP's, but not
> > everyone uses OpenEmbedded. I'd love to see a long term scalable
> > solution for tracking dts files, but that is outside the scope of
> > Moritz's request.
> 
> Are you guys coming to ELCE? There will be Devicetree Workshop which
> will be good place to talk about this.

Yeah, it's on Thursday, right?

- Moritz

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature