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

[Michal Simek]

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 at kernel.org>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>  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 at opensdr.com>
>>
>> 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.

Thanks,
Michal