On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:25:03AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:10 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 11:23 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Patient Geert has pinged again. > > > > If it's not a patch to be reviewed, then I'm not going to see it most > > likely. I don't read the DT list regularly... > > Fair enough... > > > > If I remember correctly you guys were not thrilled with this idea, but > > > also did not seem strongly against it. Are you willing to go along > > > with .dtso for overlay source files? If so, I will revive this patch > > > series. > > > > > > David, if you are against supporting .dtso in the dtc compiler then > > > the kernel can still support it through make rules. TBH, I barely remember the earlier discussion. I am more or less indifferent on .dtso. > > I'm not really interested in diverging from dtc. I'd suggest moving > > the discussion to dtc list and/or devicetree-spec if you want to get > > more attention on this. > > What needs to be supported in the dtc compiler? > The fallback passed to guess_input_format() is "dts". > So this has been working out-of-the-box since forever? Right. I usually like to supply -I and -O to dtc explicitly, in which case the extensions basically irrelevant. I suppose we could also issue warnings if the /plugin/ tag doesn't match the file extension. > > Also, keep in mind that extensions also affect MIME types which > > someone was also asking about recently. > > You mean "MIME type of Devicetree Blobs and Sources"[1]? > According to [2](2022-01-13), none of that has happened. > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree-spec/msg00938.html > [2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml > > > > On 1/6/22 3:00 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:20 AM Geert Uytterhoeven > > > > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:44 AM Geert Uytterhoeven > > > >> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 12:16 PM Geert Uytterhoeven > > > >>> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>> 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. > > > >>> > > > >>> In the mean time, we're at rc7 again? > > > >> > > > >> That was v5.13-rc7. Now we're at v5.14-rc7... > > > >> > > > >> Will we live with the inability to e.g. let make distinguish between > > > >> DT includes and overlays forever? > > > > > > > > I guess this is not gonna happen, so I'll convert all my overlays > > > > from .dtso to .dts.... > -- 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
