lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] of: unittest: rename overlay source files from .dts to .dtso
    Hi Rob,

    On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:10 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
    > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 11:23 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > Patient Geert has pinged again.
    >
    > If it's not a patch to be reviewed, then I'm not going to see it most
    > likely. I don't read the DT list regularly...

    Fair enough...

    > > If I remember correctly you guys were not thrilled with this idea, but
    > > also did not seem strongly against it. Are you willing to go along
    > > with .dtso for overlay source files? If so, I will revive this patch
    > > series.
    > >
    > > David, if you are against supporting .dtso in the dtc compiler then
    > > the kernel can still support it through make rules.
    >
    > I'm not really interested in diverging from dtc. I'd suggest moving
    > the discussion to dtc list and/or devicetree-spec if you want to get
    > more attention on this.

    What needs to be supported in the dtc compiler?
    The fallback passed to guess_input_format() is "dts".
    So this has been working out-of-the-box since forever?

    > Also, keep in mind that extensions also affect MIME types which
    > someone was also asking about recently.

    You mean "MIME type of Devicetree Blobs and Sources"[1]?
    According to [2](2022-01-13), none of that has happened.

    [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree-spec/msg00938.html
    [2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml

    > > On 1/6/22 3:00 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
    > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:20 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
    > > > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
    > > >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:44 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
    > > >> <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
    > > >>> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 12:16 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
    > > >>> <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
    > > >>>> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 7:16 AM David Gibson
    > > >>>> <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
    > > >>>>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 09:21:05AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
    > > >>>>> 65;6401;1c> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 3:48 AM David Gibson
    > > >>>>>> <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
    > > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 04:21:48PM -0500, Frank Rowand wrote:
    > > >>>>>>>> On 5/26/21 1:11 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
    > > >>>>>>>>> On 22-04-21, 13:54, Frank Rowand wrote:
    > > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/21 3:44 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
    > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 9:23 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/21 12:40 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:37:13PM -0500, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Add Makefile rule to build .dtbo.o assembly file from overlay .dtso
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> source file.
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rename unittest .dts overlay source files to use .dtso suffix.
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty lukewarm on .dtso...
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I was originally also, but I'm warming up to it.
    > > >>>>>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>>>>> What's the status of this?
    > > >>>>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>>>> I was planning to resend on top of the upcoming -rc1.
    > > >>>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>>> Ping.
    > > >>>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the prod...
    > > >>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>> The .dtso convention was added to the dtc compiler, then a patch was
    > > >>>>>>>> accepted to revert one mention of .dtso ,though there still remains
    > > >>>>>>>> two location where .dtbo is still recognized (guess_type_by_name() in
    > > >>>>>>>> dtc and the help text of the fdtoverlay program).
    > > >>>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>>> It seems that the general .dtso and .dtbo were not popular, so I'm
    > > >>>>>>>> going to drop this patch instead of continuing to try to get it
    > > >>>>>>>> accepted.
    > > >>>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>> AFAICT .dtbo is moderately well established, and I think it's a good
    > > >>>>>>> convention, since it matters whether a blob is an overlay or base
    > > >>>>>>> tree, and it's not trivial to tell which is which.
    > > >>>>>>
    > > >>>>>> Indeed.
    > > >>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>> .dtso is much more recent,
    > > >>>>>>
    > > >>>>>> Is it?
    > > >>>>>
    > > >>>>> Well, I wouldn't bet money on it, I just seem to remember encountering
    > > >>>>> .dtbo for some time before .dtso was mentioned.
    > > >>>>>
    > > >>>>>> The oldest reference I could find is from May 2015:
    > > >>>>>> "[PATCH/RFC] kbuild: Create a rule for building device tree overlay objects"
    > > >>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/1431431816-24612-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be/
    > > >>>>>
    > > >>>>> Hm, I think .dtbo is even older than that, but again, I wouldn't swear
    > > >>>>> to it.
    > > >>>>
    > > >>>> Sure. My work is based on Pantelis' work for BeagleBoard capes.
    > > >>>> His code (from 2013?) used .dtbo and .dts:
    > > >>>>
    > > >>>> overlay/v3.10/merge:firmware/Makefile:$(obj)/%.dtbo: $(obj)/%.dts
    > > >>>> | $(objtree)/$(obj)/$$(dir %)
    > > >>>>
    > > >>>> So I might be the one who introduced .dtso...
    > > >>>>
    > > >>>>>> I have always used dtbo/dtso in my published overlays branches,
    > > >>>>>> referred from https://elinux.org/R-Car/DT-Overlays, and used by
    > > >>>>>> various people.
    > > >>>>>>
    > > >>>>>>> and I think there's much less value to it.
    > > >>>>>>
    > > >>>>>> IMHO the same reasoning as for dtb vs. dtbo applies to dts vs. dtso.
    > > >>>>>> It matters if the resulting blob will be an overlay or base tree,
    > > >>>>>> as the blob will have to be called .dtb or .dtbo.
    > > >>>>>> As dtc outputs to stdout by default, the caller has to provide the
    > > >>>>>> output filename, and thus needs to know.
    > > >>>>>> Even if dtc would name the output file based on the presence of
    > > >>>>>> "/plugin/" in the input file, the build system still needs to know
    > > >>>>>> for dependency tracking.
    > > >>>>>
    > > >>>>> Hm, fair point. I was thinking of the the /plugin/ tag as the
    > > >>>>> distinction, whereas dtb is binary and the distinction isn't even
    > > >>>>> marked in the header. But you're right that even readable text labels
    > > >>>>> inside the file don't really help make(1). So, I retract that
    > > >>>>> assertion.
    > > >>>>
    > > >>>> Thanks!
    > > >>>>
    > > >>>>>> We also do have .dts vs. .dtsi.
    > > >>>
    > > >>> In the mean time, we're at rc7 again?
    > > >>
    > > >> That was v5.13-rc7. Now we're at v5.14-rc7...
    > > >>
    > > >> Will we live with the inability to e.g. let make distinguish between
    > > >> DT includes and overlays forever?
    > > >
    > > > I guess this is not gonna happen, so I'll convert all my overlays
    > > > from .dtso to .dts....

    --
    Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

    Geert

    --
    Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

    In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
    when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
    -- Linus Torvalds

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-01-14 10:26    [W:5.293 / U:0.268 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site