On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:13 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +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. OK. dtbo seems a stanrdard already... > > >+# enable creation of __symbols__ node > > >+ifneq ($(dtbo-y),) > > >+DTC_FLAGS += -@ > > >+endif > > > > I am not convinced with this code. > > > > A single user of the dtbo-y syntax gives -@ to all > > device trees in the same directory. > > > > This is not a solution since Rob already stated -@ should be > > given per board (or per platform, at least). > > Agreed. > > > I still do not understand why adding the new syntax dtbo-y > > is helpful. > > I think we should stick with 'dtb-y' here. > > > > Have we already decided to use separate ".dtb" and ".dtbo" for blobs? > > > > Will we use ".dts" for all source files? > > Or, will we use ".dtso" for overlay source files? > > > > How should the build system determine the targets > > that should have -@ option? > > The way it does already. Either: > > DTC_FLAGS += -@ > > in a directory of dts files. Or on a per file basis like: > > DTC_FLAGS_foo_base += -@ Ah yes. I like this. We do not need the dtbo-y syntax. We can simply use dtb-y for base boards and overlay fragments: dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_FOO) += \ foo-base.dtb \ foo-overlay1.dtbo \ foo-overlay2.dtbo DTB_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 -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
