On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:06:43PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 7:32 AM Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I'd be okay with distinguishing source vs. install location. Due to the > > > issue I mention below (and more) we can't use install_dtbs for openSUSE > > > and had to reimplement it, which we'd need to (and can) adjust. > > > What would be needed for dtbs_install to work? arm64 needs to support > > a flat install? If it doesn't work for Debian or openSUSE, I'm not > > sure why we have it. So I'd like to make it work. > > Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as the flat vs directory thing goes > isn't the issue that this winds up being a rename for an existing 32 bit > system? If you just install the dtbs in the default location then a > bootloader or whatever that is hard coded to look for foo-bar.dtb won't > see the new foo/foo-bar.dtb (or whatever) and will continue to use the > old binary. It's not the fact that that it's in a directory, it's the > fact that the bootloader sees the name it needs to look for change (if > it's looking on a filesystem at all). This isn't a problem for arm64 as > the location isn't changing, it's used directories from day one. Yeah, install needs to remain flat even if the dts files move into subdirectories. It will be painful for everybody if the install location moves. > The issues with the existing install_dtbs sounded unrelated to this. Agreed. -Olof
