Hi Frank! Thanks for the link back to the previous discussion, it's very helpful. On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:14:22AM -0600, Frank Rowand wrote: >On 1/20/20 4:56 AM, Alexandre Torgue wrote: ... >> and the date). There are no "dtb versions", and "absolute/relative" >> path which created concerns. One remaining concern is "reproducible > >Here is an example of the info from one of my builds: > > From Linux 5.5.0-rc2-dirty by frowand the Mon Jan 20 09:50:58 CST 2020. > >The information 'Linux 5.5.0-rc2-dirty' is precisely what was most objected >to in my proposal. ACK. :-( I'm surprised to see so much push-back on what looks like a simple piece of information here. I've had users *specifically* asking for this kind of identification so that they can verify the version of the DTB they're using at runtime. Right now it can be a guessing game, which does not help people trying to debug problems. Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
