[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200120182837.GO3697@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:28:46 +0000
From: Steve McIntyre <steve.mcintyre@...aro.org>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
david@...son.dropbear.id.au, sjg@...omium.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-compiler@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Add device tree build information
Hi Frank!
Thanks for the link back to the previous discussion, it's very
helpful.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:14:22AM -0600, Frank Rowand wrote:
>On 1/20/20 4:56 AM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
...
>> and the date). There are no "dtb versions", and "absolute/relative"
>> path which created concerns. One remaining concern is "reproducible
>
>Here is an example of the info from one of my builds:
>
> From Linux 5.5.0-rc2-dirty by frowand the Mon Jan 20 09:50:58 CST 2020.
>
>The information 'Linux 5.5.0-rc2-dirty' is precisely what was most objected
>to in my proposal.
ACK. :-( I'm surprised to see so much push-back on what looks like a
simple piece of information here.
I've had users *specifically* asking for this kind of identification
so that they can verify the version of the DTB they're using at
runtime. Right now it can be a guessing game, which does not help
people trying to debug problems.
Cheers,
--
Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@...aro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists