[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1_N6dAdjWR10FtgaVz828o7W5Mp55DO3Ex+3en-ikOUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 13:00:42 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Alex Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -fixes] riscv: Fix BUILTIN_DTB for sifive and microchip soc
On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 8:37 AM Alex Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr> wrote:
> Le 4/06/2021 à 15:08, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:06 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> Fix BUILTIN_DTB config which resulted in a dtb that was actually not built
> >> into the Linux image: in the same manner as Canaan soc does, create an object
> >> file from the dtb file that will get linked into the Linux image.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
> >
> > Along the same lines as the comment that Jisheng Zhang made on the fixed
> > address, building a dtb into the kernel itself fundamentally breaks generic
> > kernel images.
> >
> > I can understand using it on K210, which is extremely limited and wouldn't
> > run a generic kernel anyway, but for normal platforms like microchip and
> > sifive, it would be better to disallow CONFIG_BUILTIN_DTB in Kconfig
> > and require a non-broken boot loader.
>
> I kind of disagree because if I want to build a custom kernel for those
> platforms with a builtin dtb for some reasons (debug, development..Etc),
> I think I should be able to do so.
How is the builtin dtb better than appended dtb, or passing the dtb to the
boot loader in that case?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists