[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221116140139.gjfsgekz4t4pxekz@SoMainline.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 15:01:39 +0100
From: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
<nfraprado@...labora.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, kernel@...labora.com,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: dt: writing-schema: Document usage of CHECK_DTBS
make flag
+CC Konrad and Dmitry whom I discussed this with before.
On 2022-11-16 14:55:04, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> Hi Nícolas,
>
> On 2022-11-02 17:43:00, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> > It is possible to run checks on a Devicetree by passing the CHECK_DTBS
> > flag when building. This is a useful shortcut to the dtbs_check make
> > target since it avoids checking unrelated Devicetrees, which can take
> > some time and is unnecessary if no bindings were modified. Document it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst | 7 +++++++
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst
> > index 4a381d20f2b4..55ad556472b4 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst
> > @@ -167,6 +167,13 @@ setting the ``DT_SCHEMA_FILES`` variable to a specific schema file or pattern.
> > make dt_binding_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=/gpio/
> > make dtbs_check DT_SCHEMA_FILES=trivial-devices.yaml
> >
> > +Note that ``make dtbs_check`` will validate every DT source file that is
> > +enabled. When making changes to a DT but not to the bindings, a possible
> > +shortcut to validate only the DT in question is to explicitly build it with
> > +the ``CHECK_DTBS`` flag enabled. For example::
> > +
> > + make CHECK_DTBS=y mediatek/mt8192-evb.dtb
>
> I have a bit of trouble getting this to work on a _clean_ out directory
> (perhaps this should have been reported at the original patch, I had
> always been using Dmitry's version [1] which didn't suffer from this
> problem).
>
> Consider running with the following:
>
> rm out -r
> make ARCH=arm64 O=out defconfig
> make ARCH=arm64 O=out CHECK_DTBS=y qcom/sm8450-sony-xperia-nagara-pdx223.dtb
>
> After compiling preliminaries, it exits with:
>
> make[3]: *** No rule to make target 'arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450-sony-xperia-nagara-pdx223.dtb'. Stop.
> make[2]: *** [../scripts/Makefile.build:500: arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom] Error 2
> make[1]: *** [/kernel/Makefile:1460: qcom/sm8450-sony-xperia-nagara-pdx223.dtb] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory '/kernel/out'
> make: *** [Makefile:231: __sub-make] Error 2
>
> However, if I lint all DTBs first by running `dtbs_check`, it seems the
> schema preliminaries are built:
>
> LINT Documentation/devicetree/bindings
> CHKDT Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json
> ... bunch of warnings
> SCHEMA Documentation/devicetree/bindings/processed-schema.json
>
> And here I ctrl+c the build so that it doesn't run DTC_CHK over every
> dts. If I now re-run the original command on my .dtb of choice, it
> completes successfully with the warnings that I expect. Is the logic
> behind `CHECK_DTBS=y` simply missing a step to make sure SCHEMA is built
> and up-to-date?
>
> Aside from not working in a clean output directly, could this imply
> schema changes (edits in Documentation/devicetree/bindings) _are not_
> propagated when running with `CHECK_DTBS=y?
>
> At the same time running this command twice results in no output the
> second time around, supposedly because the dtb has "already been built".
> Is that also something we can improve?
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220623144357.297252-1-dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org/
>
> Thanks!
> - Marijn
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists