[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59938E76.3010807@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:14:46 -0700
From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com>
Cc: "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devicetree: Enable generation of __symbols__ in all dtb
files
On 08/15/17 15:36, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com> wrote:
>> With support for stacked overlays being part of libfdt it is now
< snip >
>> My proposal is that we do not want __symbols__ existence to be dependent
>> on some part of the kernel configuration for a number of reasons.
>> First, this is out of step with the rest of how dtbs are created today
>> and more importantly, thought about. Today, all dtb content is
>> independent of CONFIG options. If you build a dtb from a given kernel
>> tree, everyone will agree on the result. This is part of the "contract"
>> on passing old kernels and new dtb files even.
>
> Agree completely. I don't even like that building dtbs depends on the ARCH.
< snip >
I also agree that use of CONFIG options is a solution that I do not like.
It has always seemed that there is a bit of an impedence mismatch in that
we build a dtb in an environment that is configured for a specific board
and architecture.
Does anyone have any thoughts on another way to control whether or not a
given dtb or a given build of a dtb would contain the symbols needed for
overlays or not include the symbols?
-Frank
Powered by blists - more mailing lists