On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 9:44 AM Andrew Davis <afd@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/21/22 1:52 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 12:47 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 10:13 AM Andrew Davis <afd@xxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Currently DTB Overlays (.dtbo) are build from source files with the same > >>> extension (.dts) as the base DTs (.dtb). This may become confusing and > >>> even lead to wrong results. For example, a composite DTB (created from a > >>> base DTB and a set of overlays) might have the same name as one of the > >>> overlays that create it. > >>> > >>> Different files should be generated from differently named sources. > >>> .dtb <-> .dts > >>> .dtbo <-> .dtso > >>> > >>> We do not remove the ability to compile DTBO files from .dts files here, > >>> only add a new rule allowing the .dtso file name. The current .dts named > >>> overlays can be renamed with time. After all have been renamed we can > >>> remove the other rule. > >> > >> There was a patch from Geert converting everything. I'd rather not > >> support both ways. > > > > Actually that was a patch from Frank? > > > > That series looks to have stalled? Feel free to resurrect it if Frank is not going to. > > It won't be easy to convert all the files in one go, especially with series > in-flight with both names, not sure how we avoid having both extensions for > at least one cycle. Plus having both allowed lets rename the existing files > in a more granular/bisectable way. Fair enough. I'd propose a series adding the build support and converting the unittest. Then I can provide a branch for arm-soc and the dts conversions. Rob
