On 1/20/20 12:28 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > 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. Me too. > > 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, > If the information was reported as debug information via pr_debug(), would that work for your use case? Or would the users' kernels not have debug enabled in the configuration? -Frank
