[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210121065728.trqph5uwvp43k46l@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:27:28 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bill Mills <bill.mills@...aro.org>, anmar.oueja@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 5/5] of: unittest: Statically apply overlays using
fdtoverlay
On 21-01-21, 17:34, David Gibson wrote:
> No, this is the wrong way around. The expected operation here is that
> you apply overlay (1) to the base tree, giving you, say, output1.dtb.
> output1.dtb is (effectively) a base tree itself, to which you can then
> apply overlay-(2).
Thanks for the confirmation about this.
> Merging overlays is
> something that could make sense, but fdtoverlay will not do it at
> present.
FWIW, I think it works fine right now even if it not intentional. I
did inspect the output dtb (made by merging two overlays) using
fdtdump and it looked okay. But yeah, I understand that we shouldn't
do it.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists