On 04/28/17 04:25, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:09 AM, <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Existing overlay unit tests examine individual pieces of the overlay
>> code. The new tests target the entire process of applying an overlay.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> There are checkpatch warnings. I have reviewed them and feel they
>> can be ignored.
>>
>> drivers/of/fdt.c | 14 +-
>> drivers/of/of_private.h | 12 +
>> drivers/of/unittest-data/Makefile | 17 +-
>> drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay.dts | 53 ++++
>> drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_bad_phandle.dts | 20 ++
>> drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts | 80 ++++++
>> drivers/of/unittest.c | 317 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 7 files changed, 505 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay.dts
>> create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_bad_phandle.dts
>> create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts
>
> Shouldn't these be called .dtso instead of .dts?
That is a good question. I'm not worried about solving it this week for
this patch, because this could turn into a bikeshed and I can always
fix it with a patch if we decide to change. But if we do want to change
the naming, I would like to make the decision in the next couple of
months. I would like to see more progress on overlays in general
this summer, and plan to be working on them myself.
I _think_ there has been some discussion about source file naming on the
devicetree-compiler or devicetree list in the far distant past. Or I
may just be mis-remembering.
As far as I know, the current dtc does not know any suffixes other than
.dts for source files. Not that the compiler has to know, we can always
specify '-I dts'.
>
>> --- a/drivers/of/unittest-data/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest-data/Makefile
>
>> +# enable creation of __symbols__ node
>> +DTC_FLAGS_overlay := -@
>> +DTC_FLAGS_overlay_bad_phandle := -@
>> +DTC_FLAGS_overlay_base := -@
>
> This flag is needed for all DTs that will be involved with overlays.
>
> Hence what about enabling this globally instead, cfr. "Enable DT symbols when"
> CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY is used
> ("http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg103363.html";)?
And another really good question.
There are some issues. I have thought about it enough to know there are issues,
but do not have a solution and do not think I know all the issues. Some
possible issues (or perceived issues) are:
- The size of __symbols__ in an FDT (akd compile .dtb image) in either a kernel
image or a bootloader if overlays are not actually needed on a given system
(even if the system is physically capable of using overlays).
- The size of __symbols__ in kernel memory if overlays are not actually needed
on a given system (even if the system is physically capable of using overlays.)
This could be possibly be enabled/disabled by a boot command, even if
__symbols__ is in the FDT.
- A base FDT might want to have __symbols__ included with the expectation that
overlays will be used in the future. (The FDT might be built for the boot
loader, then be stable for many kernel releases.)
- Should the creation of __symbols__ be a global switch, or should it be
controlled on a per dtb basis? Or a combination of both?
Again, I'm not worried about an immediate, this week solution, but I would
like to make good progress on this in the next couple of months.
-Frank
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
