Am Donnerstag, 6. Februar 2025, 12:07:21 MEZ schrieb Quentin Schulz: > Hi Dragan, > > On 2/4/25 2:35 PM, Dragan Simic wrote: > > Hello Quentin, > > > > On 2025-02-04 13:20, Quentin Schulz wrote: > >> On 2/4/25 12:22 PM, Dragan Simic wrote: > >>> > On 2025-01-31 11:40, Quentin Schulz wrote: > > Not discussing CONFIG_OF_ALL_DTBS relevancy wrt hiding overlay tests > behind, unrelated to this series I believe :) > > [...] > > >>> With the above-proposed changes in place, and with CONFIG_OF_ALL_DTBS > >>> selected, the relevant part of the "make dtbs" output looks like this: > >>> > >>> DTC arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b.dtb > >>> DTC arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b-pcie-ep.dtbo > >>> DTC arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b-pcie-srns.dtbo > >>> OVL arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b-pcie-ep.dtb > >>> OVL arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b-pcie-srns.dtb > >>> > >>> No more "phony targets" in the produced output. :) > >> > >> Funnily enough, I would prefer to see OVL for overlays rather than > >> DTC, but I guess it's just one more occurrence of developers > >> disagreeing on how to name things :) > > > > I actually agree with that, just like I prefer to see .dtbo files > > as additions to dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_XYZ). It's all about the overlays, > > so they should be both specified and echoed back. > > > > Moreover, we currently also have additional .dtb files with applied > > overlays left after the build and installed afterwards, which doesn't > > make much sense to me. To me, those additional .dtb files should be > > deleted as build artefacts and not installed. > > > > I **think** it could be useful for systems without overlay support. Then > you have a dtb which is the result of an overlay applied on top of the > base dtb and you can replace your previous dtb with that one, and voilà. > > What I don't like is that it's difficult to differentiate them from the > "normal" base DTB or even from the DTBO (simple base DTB + overlay test > is usually named after the overlay, and in the case of the Rock 5B test: > rk3588-rock-5b-pcie-srns.dtbo and > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b-pcie-srns.dtb), easy to pick > the wrong one. Though that is on **me** as I could pick another name for > the overlay test and e.g. prepend "test-ovl_" to the filename for example. > > [...] > > >> I won't be too difficult to convince here, just want some "authority" > >> or a piece of history about CONFIG_OF_ALL_DTBS that would go your > >> direction, before doing the change. I believe automated build tests > >> without needing to enable a symbol, and that taking DTB and DTBO from > >> the build output and apply DTBO on top of DTB works without having to > >> go through some length to get the symbols, are good reasons to keep it > >> the way it is in this patch series. > > > > I'd like the most to perform the above-proposed "divorcing" of the DT > > overlay tests from CONFIG_OF_ALL_DTBS, so we don't have to enable any > > additional options to have the overlay tests run automatically, but > > to keep .dtbo filenames in dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_XYZ). I think that would > > bring the best of both worlds, so to speak. > > > > So, just to recap: > > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ROCKCHIP) += rk3568-wolfvision-pf5.dtb > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ROCKCHIP) += rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display-vz.dtbo > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ROCKCHIP) += rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-io-expander.dtbo > > stays and I add: > > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ROCKCHIP) += rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-vz-2-uhd.dtb > rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-vz-2-uhd-dtbs := rk3568-wolfvision-pf5.dtb \ > rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-display-vz.dtbo \ > rk3568-wolfvision-pf5-io-expander.dtbo > > at the bottom of the Makefile. I specifically do NOT want to make this > depend on CONFIG_OF_ALL_DTBS (by using dtb- like in ti/), so that the > base DTB will always have the symbols in, regardless of CONFIG_OF_ALL_DTBS. > > I think the redundancy is unnecessary but I guess it's worth getting > away from implicit rules. > > I can compromise on that :) > > @Heiko does this work for you? Yes, I do like the variant of _not_ limiting these builds to CONFIG_OF_ALL_DTBS. From reading up on it, it's supposed to build all dtbs - even from non-selected architectures? So on a rockchip-only-build I'd still want to build the dtb+dtbo combination nevertheless. zynq, renesas, qcom and more are doing this like Quentin proposed, where only ti is not.
