On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 11:20:34AM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote: > Hi Rob: > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 3:42 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 05:54:51PM +0800, Binbin Zhou wrote: > > > Some systems do not provide a useful device tree to the kernel at boot > > > time. Let's keep a device tree table in the kernel, keyed by the dts > > > filename, containing the relevant DTBs. > > > > Support for this in other arches was added to support legacy bootloaders > > with no DT support. You should not need this for a new architecture. Fix > > the bootloader to provide a useful DT. > > > Yes, our bootloader already supports DT. > > Our original intention of providing kernel built-in DTS is to describe > all possible device information of that SoC, so that everyone can use > it as a reference during development; we will unlikely to add more > .dts files to the kernel besides the reference ones. > > And as a reference, our built-in DTS provides the most basic bootable > combinations (so it is generic enough) as an alternative in case the > DTS in the bootloader is unexpected. > > Does this make any sense? I don't see how this answers the question - as far as I can tell Rob was asking specifically about the building the dtb into the kernel, whereas your response seems to talk about havint the dts files in the kernel tree.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
