On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:27:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 21-01-21, 17:34, David Gibson wrote: > > No, this is the wrong way around. The expected operation here is that > > you apply overlay (1) to the base tree, giving you, say, output1.dtb. > > output1.dtb is (effectively) a base tree itself, to which you can then > > apply overlay-(2). > > Thanks for the confirmation about this. > > > Merging overlays is > > something that could make sense, but fdtoverlay will not do it at > > present. > > FWIW, I think it works fine right now even if it not intentional. No, it definitely will not work in general. It might kinda work in a few trivial cases, but it absolutely will not do the neccessary handling in some cases. > I > did inspect the output dtb (made by merging two overlays) using > fdtdump and it looked okay. Ok.. but if you're using these bizarre messed up "dtbs" that this test code seems to be, I don't really trust that tells you much. > But yeah, I understand that we shouldn't > do it. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
