Hi VIresh, On 3/12/21 11:11 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 3/12/21 1:13 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 12-03-21, 01:09, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> I suggested having the .dtso files include the .dts file because that is a relatively >>> small and easy change to test. What would probably make more sense is the rename >>> the existing overlay .dts files to be .dtso files and then for each overlay .dtso >>> file create a new .dts file that #includes the corresponding .dtso file. This is >>> more work and churn, but easier to document that the .dts files are a hack that is >>> needed so that the corresponding .dtb.S files will be generated. >> >> What about creating links instead then ? >> > > I don't really like the idea of using links here. > > Maybe it is best to make the changes needed to allow the unittest > overlays to be .dtso instead of .dts. > > Off the top of my head: > > scripts/Makefile.lib: > The rule for %.dtb.S invokes cmd_dt_S_dtb, which puts the > overlay data in section .dtb.init.rodata, with a label > pointing to the beginning of the overlay __dtb_XXX_begin and > a label pointing to the end of the overlay __dtb_XXX_end, > for the overlay named XXX. I _think_ that you could simply > add a corresponding rule for %.dtbo.S using a new command > cmd_dt_S_dtbo (the same as cmd_dt_S_dtb, except use labels > __dtbo_XXX_begin and __dtbo_XXX_end). If you do the above, please put it in drivers/of/unittest-data/Makefile instead of scripts/Makefile.lib because it is unittest.c specific and not meant to be anywhere else in the kernel. -Frank > > drivers/of/unittest.o: > would need to have the #define of OVERLAY_INFO() changed to > reflect the changed label names (use __dtbo_##overlayname##begin > and __dtb_##overlay_name##_end). > > drivers/of/unittest-data/Makefile: > In obj-$(CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY) change the *.dtb.o names to *.dtbo.o > > I'm not sure how the DTC_FLAGS_... += -@ differentiates between > .dts / .dtb and .dtso / .dtbo That is worth looking at. > > -Frank >
