On 5/26/21 8:22 PM, David Gibson wrote: > 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. > Thanks for the correction, I misunderstood your thoughts. -Frank
