On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 04:21:48PM -0500, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 5/26/21 1:11 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 22-04-21, 13:54, Frank Rowand wrote: > >> On 4/22/21 3:44 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>> Hi Frank, Rob, > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:23 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On 3/27/21 12:40 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:37:13PM -0500, frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>>>>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Add Makefile rule to build .dtbo.o assembly file from overlay .dtso > >>>>>> source file. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rename unittest .dts overlay source files to use .dtso suffix. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm pretty lukewarm on .dtso... > >>>> > >>>> I was originally also, but I'm warming up to it. > >>> > >>> What's the status of this? > >> > >> I was planning to resend on top of the upcoming -rc1. > > > > Ping. > > > > Thanks for the prod... > > The .dtso convention was added to the dtc compiler, then a patch was > accepted to revert one mention of .dtso ,though there still remains > two location where .dtbo is still recognized (guess_type_by_name() in > dtc and the help text of the fdtoverlay program). > > It seems that the general .dtso and .dtbo were not popular, so I'm > going to drop this patch instead of continuing to try to get it > accepted. AFAICT .dtbo is moderately well established, and I think it's a good convention, since it matters whether a blob is an overlay or base tree, and it's not trivial to tell which is which. .dtso is much more recent, and I think there's much less value to 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
