[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210120050606.b2m4jssh73wexybx@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 10:36:06 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Bill Mills <bill.mills@...aro.org>, anmar.oueja@...aro.org,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: unittest: Statically apply overlays using fdtoverlay
On 19-01-21, 09:44, Frank Rowand wrote:
> No. overlay_base.dts is intentionally compiled into a base FDT, not
> an overlay. Unittest intentionally unflattens this FDT in early boot,
> in association with unflattening the system FDT. One key intent
> behind this is to use the same memory allocation method that is
> used for the system FDT.
>
> Do not try to convert overlay_base.dts into an overlay.
Okay, but why does it have /plugin/; specified in it then ?
And shouldn't we create two separate dtb-s now, static_test.dtb and
static_overlay_test.dtb ? As fdtoverlay will not be able to merge it with
testcase.dtb anyway.
Or maybe we can create another file static_overlay.dts (like testcases.dts)
which can include both testcases.dts and overlay_base.dts, and then we can
create static_test.dtb out of it ? That won't impact the runtime tests at all.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists