On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 08:59:45AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi François,
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 11:33, François Ozog francois.ozog@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Simon
Le lun. 1 nov. 2021 à 17:58, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org a écrit :
Hi Peter,
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 04:48, Peter Maydell peter.maydell@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 01:33, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Add this file, generated from qemu, so there is a reference devicetree in the U-Boot tree.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Note that the dtb you get from QEMU is only guaranteed to work if:
- you run it on the exact same QEMU version you generated it with
- you pass QEMU the exact same command line arguments you used when you generated it
Yes, I certainly understand that. In general this is not safe, but in practice it works well enough for development and CI.
You recognize that you hijack a product directory with development hack facility. There is a test directory to keep things clear. There can be a dev-dts or something similar for Dev time tools. I have only seen push back on those fake dts files in the dts directory: I guess that unless someone strongly favors a continuation of the discussion, you may consider re-shaping the proposal to address concerns.
As stated previously, I would like to have at least a sample DT in-tree for all boards. I cannot see another way to get the Kconfig
What's the point of having a sample when it's not going to always be correct or may be actively wrong and we can tell interested developers / users how to get the correct DTB/DTS to examine?
options in line. If we are able to put these files somewhere else in the future and get them out of U-Boot, with perhaps just an overlay for development purposes, I'd be keen to see it. But for now, this is where we are, I believe.
In this particular case, this is not just a dev hack. It is also for CI tests which need to use a devicetree. See for example here:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20211101011734.1614781-15-s... https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20211101011734.1614781-24-s...
This example would probably be better done on vexpress_ca9x4 where we do test in CI via QEMU but do not need to modify a device tree that is passed on to us, we already control the source of truth DTB in this case.
And also yes, I'm behind on reviewing things I need to review.