On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 11:23 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, David, > > Patient Geert has pinged again. If it's not a patch to be reviewed, then I'm not going to see it most likely. I don't read the DT list regularly... > If I remember correctly you guys were not thrilled with this idea, but > also did not seem strongly against it. Are you willing to go along > with .dtso for overlay source files? If so, I will revive this patch > series. > > David, if you are against supporting .dtso in the dtc compiler then > the kernel can still support it through make rules. I'm not really interested in diverging from dtc. I'd suggest moving the discussion to dtc list and/or devicetree-spec if you want to get more attention on this. Also, keep in mind that extensions also affect MIME types which someone was also asking about recently. Rob > > -Frank > > > On 1/6/22 3:00 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:20 AM Geert Uytterhoeven > > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:44 AM Geert Uytterhoeven > >> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 12:16 PM Geert Uytterhoeven > >>> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 7:16 AM David Gibson > >>>> <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 09:21:05AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>>>> 65;6401;1c> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 3:48 AM David Gibson > >>>>>> <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 04:21:48PM -0500, Frank Rowand wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/26/21 1:11 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 22-04-21, 13:54, Frank Rowand wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/21 3:44 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:23 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/21 12:40 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:37:13PM -0500, frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Add Makefile rule to build .dtbo.o assembly file from overlay .dtso > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> source file. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rename unittest .dts overlay source files to use .dtso suffix. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty lukewarm on .dtso... > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I was originally also, but I'm warming up to it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> What's the status of this? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I was planning to resend on top of the upcoming -rc1. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ping. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the prod... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The .dtso convention was added to the dtc compiler, then a patch was > >>>>>>>> accepted to revert one mention of .dtso ,though there still remains > >>>>>>>> two location where .dtbo is still recognized (guess_type_by_name() in > >>>>>>>> dtc and the help text of the fdtoverlay program). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It seems that the general .dtso and .dtbo were not popular, so I'm > >>>>>>>> going to drop this patch instead of continuing to try to get it > >>>>>>>> accepted. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> AFAICT .dtbo is moderately well established, and I think it's a good > >>>>>>> convention, since it matters whether a blob is an overlay or base > >>>>>>> tree, and it's not trivial to tell which is which. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Indeed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> .dtso is much more recent, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is it? > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, I wouldn't bet money on it, I just seem to remember encountering > >>>>> .dtbo for some time before .dtso was mentioned. > >>>>> > >>>>>> The oldest reference I could find is from May 2015: > >>>>>> "[PATCH/RFC] kbuild: Create a rule for building device tree overlay objects" > >>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/1431431816-24612-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Hm, I think .dtbo is even older than that, but again, I wouldn't swear > >>>>> to it. > >>>> > >>>> Sure. My work is based on Pantelis' work for BeagleBoard capes. > >>>> His code (from 2013?) used .dtbo and .dts: > >>>> > >>>> overlay/v3.10/merge:firmware/Makefile:$(obj)/%.dtbo: $(obj)/%.dts > >>>> | $(objtree)/$(obj)/$$(dir %) > >>>> > >>>> So I might be the one who introduced .dtso... > >>>> > >>>>>> I have always used dtbo/dtso in my published overlays branches, > >>>>>> referred from https://elinux.org/R-Car/DT-Overlays, and used by > >>>>>> various people. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> and I think there's much less value to it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IMHO the same reasoning as for dtb vs. dtbo applies to dts vs. dtso. > >>>>>> It matters if the resulting blob will be an overlay or base tree, > >>>>>> as the blob will have to be called .dtb or .dtbo. > >>>>>> As dtc outputs to stdout by default, the caller has to provide the > >>>>>> output filename, and thus needs to know. > >>>>>> Even if dtc would name the output file based on the presence of > >>>>>> "/plugin/" in the input file, the build system still needs to know > >>>>>> for dependency tracking. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hm, fair point. I was thinking of the the /plugin/ tag as the > >>>>> distinction, whereas dtb is binary and the distinction isn't even > >>>>> marked in the header. But you're right that even readable text labels > >>>>> inside the file don't really help make(1). So, I retract that > >>>>> assertion. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>>> > >>>>>> We also do have .dts vs. .dtsi. > >>> > >>> In the mean time, we're at rc7 again? > >> > >> That was v5.13-rc7. Now we're at v5.14-rc7... > >> > >> Will we live with the inability to e.g. let make distinguish between > >> DT includes and overlays forever? > > > > I guess this is not gonna happen, so I'll convert all my overlays > > from .dtso to .dts.... > > > > 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 > > >
