Hi David, On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 7:16 AM David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 09:21:05AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > 65;6401;1c> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 3:48 AM David Gibson > > <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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: > > > > >>> 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. > > > > Indeed. > > > > > .dtso is much more recent, > > > > Is it? > > Well, I wouldn't bet money on it, I just seem to remember encountering > .dtbo for some time before .dtso was mentioned. > > > The oldest reference I could find is from May 2015: > > "[PATCH/RFC] kbuild: Create a rule for building device tree overlay objects" > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/1431431816-24612-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Hm, I think .dtbo is even older than that, but again, I wouldn't swear > to it. Sure. My work is based on Pantelis' work for BeagleBoard capes. His code (from 2013?) used .dtbo and .dts: overlay/v3.10/merge:firmware/Makefile:$(obj)/%.dtbo: $(obj)/%.dts | $(objtree)/$(obj)/$$(dir %) So I might be the one who introduced .dtso... > > I have always used dtbo/dtso in my published overlays branches, > > referred from https://elinux.org/R-Car/DT-Overlays, and used by > > various people. > > > > > and I think there's much less value to it. > > > > IMHO the same reasoning as for dtb vs. dtbo applies to dts vs. dtso. > > It matters if the resulting blob will be an overlay or base tree, > > as the blob will have to be called .dtb or .dtbo. > > As dtc outputs to stdout by default, the caller has to provide the > > output filename, and thus needs to know. > > Even if dtc would name the output file based on the presence of > > "/plugin/" in the input file, the build system still needs to know > > for dependency tracking. > > Hm, fair point. I was thinking of the the /plugin/ tag as the > distinction, whereas dtb is binary and the distinction isn't even > marked in the header. But you're right that even readable text labels > inside the file don't really help make(1). So, I retract that > assertion. Thanks! > > We also do have .dts vs. .dtsi. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
