On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:26 PM, David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 08:04:52AM -0600, Kyle Evans wrote: >> [... snip ...] >> The problem is that these overlays aren't necessarily curated by a >> single authority, so conflicts with multiple overlays trying to >> reference a node is scary. Ideally, we'd like these things to be as >> usable as possible for average Joe Blow. > > Yeah, fair enough. I'll re-evaluate your patches with that in mind. I appreciate your consideration, thank you. =) I'm not necessarily too keen on requiring our users to likely have to disassemble every overlay they receive or consider which order they apply in if they're not functionally related. It also helps me out as I work on hardware that doesn't have complete DTS in mainline Linux yet, so I'm frequently adding nodes via overlay that reference base nodes not yet with phandles. Adding phandles to everything as I go gets kind of messy in my overlays and makes it that much more difficult to assemble an upstreamable patch. I've also had fleeting thoughts of writing a tool like dtdiff, but will actually generate an overlay of the difference between the two dts being compared. The main use case here being that we follow Linux releases (not -rc) for our dts, so automatically generating a DTBO from where we're at to the next stable release (perhaps in the later -rc stage) would be really really helpful to evaluate if we still work and what we need to fix. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree-compiler" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
