Adding Amit to the CC list. On Sun, 22 May 2022 at 13:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 20/05/2022 03:39, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > >> > >> I vaguely recall that the properties had to be extracted during the > >> boot.img creation process to create a table of contents header. But > >> after some time the bootloader started scanning the DTBs directly for > >> the vendor properties and thus the header was deprecated/removed. If the > >> bootloader is doing the scanning then I'm not sure what is preventing > >> the properties from being documented and allowed. I think the main > >> rejection was that the properties were added purely to be extracted > >> during post processing and placed into the table of contents header, > >> i.e. they weren't actually used by the kernel or the bootloader. If they > >> are now used by the bootloader it sounds OK to me if they're kept > >> around. > > > > Yes, as far as I understand, they are used by the bootloader directly. > > > > I entirely missed one part - Stephen's patches from 2015 were actually > applied and since 2015 we expect all boards to follow convention: > > compatible = > "qcom,<SoC>[-<soc_version>][-<foundry_id>]-<board>[/<subtype>][-<board_version>]" > > The patchset was accepted, although in the thread I do not see "Applied" > message. > > Stephen, > can you or anyone else confirm that the dtbTool Qualcomm uses (and/or > bootloader) are adjusted as well to these new compatibles? > > If yes, we can simply remove board-id and msm-id properties from new > boards, because 7 years was enough to switch to these new tools... Amit, can you please comment on the AOSP image build process and the possibility to drop the board-id/msm-id from the dts files in favour of using the dtbTool. -- With best wishes Dmitry
