On 19/05/2022 13.50, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
Understood, thanks for the explanation. I am good with this patch.
Acked-by: Aswath Govindraju a-govindraju@ti.com
Thanks.
For completeness, to expand on this:
it's somewhat fragile to rely on (at least one of) the nodes in question to even have a phandle.
One way in which to ensure all nodes (with a label) do get a phandle is to build with the -@ flag to dtc, which is implied by setting CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY=y. Three of the four _defconfigs that set PHANDLE_CHECK_SEQ also set that option, so for them it was guaranteed to work, but mostly by chance - if I randomly discovered CONFIG_PHANDLE_CHECK_SEQ and found I needed to enable it for my board, I wouldn't know to also enable CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY. And if I didn't need overlay support as such, it would also bloat the .dtb (and U-Boot itself) needlessly; the difference for sama7g5ek_mmc_defconfig is 34784 bytes for the current .dtb and 26920 bytes if one disables OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY.
The last _defconfig with PHANDLE_CHECK_SEQ=y didn't actually seem to need it; I've built it and looked at u-boot.dtb, and there are no collisions in basenames in the aliases. Commit ddd778ae doesn't say anything about why it was added.
Rasmus