[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210121233957.GA4400@yekko.fritz.box>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 10:39:57 +1100
From: David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
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 Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:27:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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.
No, it definitely will not work in general. It might kinda work in a
few trivial cases, but it absolutely will not do the neccessary
handling in some cases.
> I
> did inspect the output dtb (made by merging two overlays) using
> fdtdump and it looked okay.
Ok.. but if you're using these bizarre messed up "dtbs" that this test
code seems to be, I don't really trust that tells you much.
> But yeah, I understand that we shouldn't
> do it.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists