Hi Tom, Some nit picking on the patch comment. :-) On 08/16/17 17:35, Tom Rini wrote: > This introduces the variabe DTC_EXTRA_FLAGS to allow for additional > flags to be passed to dtc. While this can have many uses (such as > easier testing of new warning flags) the use case I wish to spell out > here is passing of -@ to enable __symbols__ to be included in the > resulting dtb and thus 'stacked' overlays to be able to be used. Not just stacked overlays (I'm guessing by that you mean an overlay applied on top of an overlay), but even an overlay on top of the base dtb. > When passing in -@ this will increase the size of the dtb (and resident > memory usage) in exchange for allowing more types of overlays to be > applied to the dtb file prior to passing it to Linux and additional > functionality within the kernel when OF_OVERLAY is enabled and in tools > outside of the kernel. Not so much additional functionality within the kernel. It is basic functionality for any overlay to be applied in the kernel. > > Cc: Jason Kridner <jkridner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Drew Fustini <drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@xxxxxx> > Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@xxxxxxxx> > CC: linux-kbuild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > This would be v3 of my attempt to enable __symbols__ more widely (v2, > for people not on the CC, enabled it always, but for some boards). > > To be clear, this version of the patch is more flexible in that it > allows for arbitrary flags to be passed to dtc, which can have other > uses. But, I'm still spelling out -@ being the motivation behind this > for clarity. Thank you, that is very useful info to capture in the commit history. > Both Frank and Rob were uncomfortable with v2, and Frank > suggested this approach to make it easier for users / distributions / > etc to opt-in to this functionality. For clarity, Frank was suggesting > (at least at first) perhaps also a tie-in CONFIG option, which I have > not done here as I feel that's adding extra hurdles to something that > must already be opt-in. Given that today many of the immediate uses are > for "pre-boot" application of overlays (SoM + carrier + add-ons or EVM + > LCD for example), I believe this is an acceptable trade-off to make > currently. If I understand correctly, then you are following Rob's suggestion of passing the DTC_EXTRA_FLAGS value in the dtb make command. That seems to be a reasonable approach for now. Rob did mention that he would like to remove the current hard coding of a base DTC_FLAGS value, where several architectures initialize it with one of: DTC_FLAGS ?= -p 1024 DTC_FLAGS := -p 1024 If those initializations can be removed, then we could just use DTC_FLAGS in the make command, instead of adding DTC_EXTRA_FLAGS. Can you discuss that option with Rob? (Sorry Rob, I'll be off-grid soon.) > --- > scripts/Makefile.lib | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.lib b/scripts/Makefile.lib > index 58c05e5d9870..04434ffe3370 100644 > --- a/scripts/Makefile.lib > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.lib > @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ DTC_FLAGS += -Wnode_name_chars_strict \ > -Wproperty_name_chars_strict > endif > > -DTC_FLAGS += $(DTC_FLAGS_$(basetarget)) > +DTC_FLAGS += $(DTC_FLAGS_$(basetarget)) $(DTC_EXTRA_FLAGS) > > # Generate an assembly file to wrap the output of the device tree compiler > quiet_cmd_dt_S_dtb= DTB $@ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
