Hi Grant,
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Grant Likely grant.likely@secretlab.ca wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com wrote:
Simon Glass wrote at Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:25 PM:
Hi Stephen,
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com wrote:
Simon Glass wrote at Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:26 PM:
This new option allows U-Boot to embed a binary device tree into its image to allow run-time control of peripherals. This device tree is for U-Boot's own use and is not necessarily the same one as is passed to the kernel.
The device tree compiler output should be placed in the $(obj) rooted tree. Since $(OBJCOPY) insists on adding the path to the generated symbol names, to ensure consistency it should be invoked from the directory where the .dtb file is located and given the input file name without the path.
...
+process_lds = \
- $(1) | sed -r -n 's/^OUTPUT_$(2)[ ("]*([^")]*).*/\1/p'
+# Run the compiler and get the link script from the linker +GET_LDS = $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -Wl,--verbose 2>&1
+$(obj)dt.o: $(DT_BIN)
- # We want the output format and arch.
- # We also hope to win a prize for ugliest Makefile / shell interaction
- # We look in the LDSCRIPT first.
- # Then try the linker which should give us the answer.
- # Then check it worked.
- oformat=`$(call process_lds,cat $(LDSCRIPT),FORMAT)` ;\
- oarch=`$(call process_lds,cat $(LDSCRIPT),ARCH)` ;\
- \
- [ -z $${oformat} ] && \
- oformat=`$(call process_lds,$(GET_LDS),FORMAT)` ;\
- [ -z $${oarch} ] && \
- oarch=`$(call process_lds,$(GET_LDS),ARCH)` ;\
- \
- [ -z $${oformat} ] && \
- echo "Cannot read OUTPUT_FORMAT from lds file $(LDSCRIPT)" && \
- exit 1 || true ;\
- [ -z $${oarch} ] && \
- echo "Cannot read OUTPUT_ARCH from lds file $(LDSCRIPT)" && \
- exit 1 || true ;\
- \
- cd $(dir ${DT_BIN}) && \
- $(OBJCOPY) -I binary -O $${oformat} -B $${oarch} \
- $(notdir ${DT_BIN}) $@
- rm $(DT_BIN)
Instead of all that, can't you just run a trivial script to generate a .c file containing the data from DTB_BIN, and then use the compiler to compile that, i.e. spit out something like:
const unsigned char dtb[] = { 0xaa, 0x55, ...... };
That'd certainly drastically simplify the makefile, although waste a little more time and temp disk space.
What, and withdraw my Makefile contest entry? :-)
:-)
I feel that objcopy is designed to do exactly this, and generating C code is a roundabout way of producing an object file with data in it. The difficulty of finding out the output format/architecture is something we might clean up in U-Boot generally at some point (e.g. figure it out as part of the original 'make ..._config') in which case this would all go away.
Thoughts?
Looking some more, dtc has option "-O asm" which writes directly to a text file that can be assembled; there'd be no extra temp files or conversions if you used that.
I recommend *not* using the asm output option. It's not nearly as well tested and it is likely to have some big-endian-isms in it that don't work well. I prefer the objcopy approach myself. That's what it is for.
Oh dear that sounds bad. The difficultly is in figuring out the arguments to objcopy (architecture and oformat). But we do need it to work reliably, so I will move back to the original approach for now.
Regards, Simon
g.