* Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> [230922 16:23]:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 9:38 AM Andrew Davis <afd@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/12/23 1:59 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> [230911 21:46]:
> > >> DT overlays in tree need to be applied to a base DTB to validate they
> > >> apply, to run schema checks on them, and to catch any errors at compile
> > >> time.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >> Note that I have no idea if this combination of overlays makes sense.
> > >
> >
> > It does make sense, but it is only one of many valid combinations. I'm
> > guessing the goal here is just to make sure they all get applied in
> > at least one way so the scheme check runs. In that case this is fine
> > other than it might give the impression this is the only valid combinations.
>
> I only care that an overlay is applied to one base. You should care
> about any combination a user might do in a bootloader because who
> wants to debug a failure a) on a board and b) in the bootloader.
>
> > Also now we end up with these odd `am57{1,2}x-idk-overlays.dtb` files
> > which also might confuse folks, I wonder if there is some way to
> > apply and check, but not ship/install these..
>
> There's already a config option, CONFIG_OF_ALL_DTBS, which adds
> $(dtb-) entries to the build. So if you have "dtb- +=
> foo-overlays.dtb" it will only be built in that case. Note that they'd
> probably get installed too, but who installs allyesconfig builds.
So what's the conclusion here? Is this safe to apply yes or no?
Regards,
Tony
