+David Gibson On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:40 AM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 8:17 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 07-01-21, 14:28, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > Viresh's patch is not enough. > > > > > > We will need to change .gitignore > > > and scripts/Makefile.dtbinst as well. > > > > > > In my understanding, the build rule is completely the same > > > between .dtb and .dtbo > > > As Rob mentioned, I am not sure if we really need/want > > > a separate extension. > > > > > > A counter approach is to use an extension like '.ovl.dtb' > > > It clarifies it is an overlay fragment without changing > > > anything in our build system or the upstream DTC project. > > > > By the time you gave feedback, I have already sent the dtbo change for > > DTC to the device-tree-compiler list (based on Rob's suggestion). > > > > And it got merged today by David: > > > > https://github.com/dgibson/dtc/commit/163f0469bf2ed8b2fe5aa15bc796b93c70243ddc > > > > Can we please finalize what we need to do with naming here and be done > > with it, so I can rework my patches and get going ? > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- > > viresh > > > > It is unfortunate to see such a patch merged > before getting agreement about how it should work > as a whole. Given the feedback that dtbo is already a standard, I'd suggest we just stick with dts->dtbo. > >+# enable creation of __symbols__ node > >+ifneq ($(dtbo-y),) > >+DTC_FLAGS += -@ > >+endif > > I am not convinced with this code. > > A single user of the dtbo-y syntax gives -@ to all > device trees in the same directory. > > This is not a solution since Rob already stated -@ should be > given per board (or per platform, at least). Agreed. > I still do not understand why adding the new syntax dtbo-y > is helpful. I think we should stick with 'dtb-y' here. > Have we already decided to use separate ".dtb" and ".dtbo" for blobs? > > Will we use ".dts" for all source files? > Or, will we use ".dtso" for overlay source files? > > How should the build system determine the targets > that should have -@ option? The way it does already. Either: DTC_FLAGS += -@ in a directory of dts files. Or on a per file basis like: DTC_FLAGS_foo_base += -@ > For consistency, will we need a patch like follows? > > > diff --git a/dtc.c b/dtc.c > index bdb3f59..474401e 100644 > --- a/dtc.c > +++ b/dtc.c > @@ -120,6 +120,8 @@ static const char *guess_type_by_name(const char > *fname, const char *fallback) > return fallback; > if (!strcasecmp(s, ".dts")) > return "dts"; > + if (!strcasecmp(s, ".dtso")) > + return "dts"; > if (!strcasecmp(s, ".yaml")) > return "yaml"; > if (!strcasecmp(s, ".dtb")) > @@ -349,6 +351,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > if (streq(outform, "dts")) { > dt_to_source(outf, dti); > + else if (streq(outform, "dtso")) { > + dt_to_source(outf, dti); > #ifndef NO_YAML > } else if (streq(outform, "yaml")) { > if (!streq(inform, "dts")) > > > > Overall solution looks unclear to me. > > > Again, it is unfortunate that we did not take enough time > (in spite of the RFC prefix) before proceeding. I should have added David here from the start. Honestly, I expected some discussion there. Rob
