On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 at 18:27, Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 1:46 AM Dmitry Baryshkov > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 at 10:05, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:53 PM Dmitry Baryshkov > > > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 at 08:55, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 2:36 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 4:06 AM Dmitry Baryshkov > > > > > > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is useful to be able to recheck dtbs files against a limited set of > > > > > > > DT schema files. This can be accomplished by using differnt > > > > > > > DT_SCHEMA_FILES argument values while rerunning make dtbs_check. However > > > > > > > for some reason if_changed_rule doesn't pick up the rule_dtc changes > > > > > > > (and doesn't retrigger the build). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fix this by changing if_changed_rule to if_changed_dep and squashing DTC > > > > > > > and dt-validate into a single new command. Then if_changed_dep triggers > > > > > > > on DT_SCHEMA_FILES changes and reruns the build/check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > scripts/Makefile.lib | 14 ++++++-------- > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.lib b/scripts/Makefile.lib > > > > > > > index c88b98b5dc44..3df470289382 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/scripts/Makefile.lib > > > > > > > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.lib > > > > > > > @@ -383,17 +383,15 @@ DT_CHECKER_FLAGS ?= $(if $(DT_SCHEMA_FILES),-l $(DT_SCHEMA_FILES),-m) > > > > > > > DT_BINDING_DIR := Documentation/devicetree/bindings > > > > > > > DT_TMP_SCHEMA := $(objtree)/$(DT_BINDING_DIR)/processed-schema.json > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -quiet_cmd_dtb_check = CHECK $@ > > > > > > > - cmd_dtb_check = $(DT_CHECKER) $(DT_CHECKER_FLAGS) -u $(srctree)/$(DT_BINDING_DIR) -p $(DT_TMP_SCHEMA) $@ || true > > > > > > > +quiet_cmd_dtb = DTC/CHECK $@ > > > > > > > > > > > > This is supposed to be 7 chars or less. DTCCHK or DTC_CHK perhaps. Or > > > > > > always do just 'DTC'. I can fixup when applying. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll give it a few days for other comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you change DT_SCHEMA_FILES, re-running dt-validate should be enough. > > > > > You do not need to re-run dtc. > > > > > > > > > > I guess the strangeness comes from the fact that you are trying to do the > > > > > two different things in a single rule. > > > > > > > > The issue is that with the current rules the dt-validate isn't > > > > re-executed on DT_SCHEMA_FILES changes. Thus comes my proposal. > > > > > > Correct. > > > > > > What I said is like this. > > > > > > # touch the timestamp file, %.dtb.checked > > > $(obj)/%.dtb.checked: $(obj)/%.dtb $(DT_TMP_SCHEMA) FORCE > > Not really a fan of the thousands of files that creates. Maybe if it > was turned into something useful like a list of schemas that apply to > the dtb. IOW, a dependency list. That would speed up re-running after > a schema change. Though if a schema change created new dependencies, > that wouldn't work. > > > > $(call if_changed_rule,dtb_check) > > > > > > $(obj)/%.dtb: $(src)/%.dts $(DTC) $FORCE > > > $(call if_changed_rule,dtc) > > > > > > $(obj)/%.dtbo: $(src)/%.dts $(DTC) FORCE > > > $(call if_changed_dep,dtc) > > > > > > > > > With the dtc/check split, we can avoid unneeded regeneration of > > > %.dtb when DT_TMP_SCHEMA or DT_SCHEMA_FILES is > > > changed. > > > > > > > > > One drawback is we track %.dtb.checked and and %.dtb separately, > > > so something like 53182e81f47d4ea0c727c49ad23cb782173ab849 > > > may come back. > > > > It's up to you and Rob, but I'd really prefer a simpler solution here. > > Regenerating dtbs sounds like a minor pain compared to hacking the > > top-level Makefile again. What I really like is that if one has > > CHECK_DTBS=y (for whatever reason), he can not generate dtb without > > validation. > > I lean towards just rebuilding the dtbs. That's pretty quick and > ensures we get dtc warnings with schema warnings. In the long run, I > would like to make the schema checks not optional to run. The > impediment to doing that is lots of warnings (but not not some > platforms), adding a tool dependency, and validation time. Rob, Masahiro, do we have any conclusion here? I can change my patch, but I'd like to understand in which way I should change it. Fixing/testing yaml changes is a bit painful w/o this change. -- With best wishes Dmitry
