On 2/19/20 12:05 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > 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. Documenting all the previous proposals in one place is the next item on my todo list after finishing my "why I don't want .dts to move out of the kernel tree" document. Once the format discussion history document exists then I intend to restart the discussion on the mail lists. -Frank > > Cheers, >
