Hey Frank, On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:24:59AM -0600, Frank Rowand wrote: >On 2/13/20 8:50 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: ... >> 2. Bootloader applied overlays >> a. https://github.com/wmamills/dt-overlays >> 1. BM: Good discussion on the list. Is this a new agreement on >> accepting overlays in the kernel? Is there still a laundry >> list of issues? >> 2. RH: Whilst we agree it’s the right place last time it was >> submitted I gave feedback and it was never acted on. If >> splitting to base and overlays need a way to get back to what >> you previously had. >> 3. BM: Do you want to mash base and overlays together. I think >> we tried to upstream that and it was rejected. >> 4. RH: Just need to change DTB format first … (Frank) > >That matches my memory of wanting to update the DTB format before allowing >overlay sources into the kernel tree. BUT, it has been two years (I >think) of small bursts of discussion about DTB format with little >forward progress. I had hoped to revive the DTB format discussion in >December or January, but now it is already February. Maybe I will get >to it this month. > >The biggest change since then is that overlays can be applied by the >bootloader (at least I think that was implemented after my objection). >That alone is enough to change my opinion. But on top of that, the >long delay on DTB format update also changes my opinion. Do you have any pointers to previous discussions about the format update please? The only relevant things I can find are in the thread "DTBO magic and dtbo format options" but that's back in the middle of 2016. Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
