On 05/29/2013 09:59 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: >> On 05/28/2013 01:36 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> There are a few partially conflicting requirements in compiling the device >>> tree, since U-Boot relies on whatever is installed on the build machine. >>> >>> Some versions of dtc support -i, and this is often better than using >>> #include >>> since you get correct line number information in errors. >> >> What issue is there with line numbers when using dtc? Recent dtc >> supports #line directives from the pre-processing results, and hence >> reports errors in terms of the source files, just like raw dtc without cpp. > > That's the issue. What does dtc v1.3 do?
v1.3 doesn't include the feature, but it also doesn't support -i either. >>> Unfortunately this >>> version must be installed manually in current Linux distributions. >> >> Well, then that gets into the problem of some .dts files choosing to use >> /include/ and rely on -i, but others using #include and not. I don't >> really think it's a good idea to propagate both versions. Picking one >> and using it would be far better. >> >> I really do think we should simply require a reasonably recent dtc and >> be done with it. > > I would be happy with that, but it can be an extra barrier to getting > U-Boot building. The Linux kernel chose to solve this by bundling the required dtc source inside the kernel source tree as a tool. This seems by far the simplest way to solve the problem for U-Boot too. If not, it's not exactly hard to: git clone make ... given that one is already building U-Boot from source anyway. > So do we need using #include at all if we are using -i ? Well, *.dts are moving to #include (and other cpp constructs) rather than /include/ in the copies in the Linux kernel, which I think will eventually make their way into U-Boot for consistency. Equally, if/when *.dts get separated out into a separate project from the kernel, I think we'd want the same to happen for U-Boot so that the same *.dts is used. Then, there won't be a choice. >>> Some device tree files use the word 'linux' which gets replaced with '1' by >>> many version of gcc, including version 4.7. So undefine this. >> >> Linux chose to use -undef rather than undefining specific/individual >> defines. It'd be best to be consistent to that .dts files are more >> likely to be portable between the two. > > Seems a bit extreme, but OK. Are you worried that gcc defines other > things without the double underscore? IIRC there were some other issues, yes. "unix" may have been one of them. The problem was reported (and I think that fix suggested) by someone else, so I don't remember the full details, although they're in the mailing list archives I suppose. >>> diff --git a/dts/Makefile b/dts/Makefile >>> >>> -DARCH_CPU_DTS=\"$(SRCTREE)/arch/$(ARCH)/dts/$(CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE).dtsi\" >>> \ >>> >>> -DBOARD_DTS=\"$(SRCTREE)/board/$(VENDOR)/$(BOARD)/dts/$(DEVICE_TREE).dts\" \ >>> - -I$(SRCTREE)/board/$(VENDOR)/dts -I$(SRCTREE)/arch/$(ARCH)/dts >>> + -D__ASSEMBLY__ -I$(OBJTREE)/include -I$(SRCTREE)/include \ >>> + -I$(OBJTREE)/include2 \ >> >> Do we really want include or include2 (what's that?) at all? The .dts >> files really should be standalone, and not interact with the U-Boot >> headers at all. > > I understood that you were wanting to make use of U-Boot defines. If > you want to include include/config.h then I think you need these. I hope I didn't want to:-) The DT should really represent the HW not anything about the way U-Boot is configured. >>> + -include $(OBJTREE)/include/config.h >>> + >>> +DTS_TMP := $(OBJTREE)/include/generated/$(DEVICE_TREE).dts.in >> >> Hmm. This really isn't a generated header file. Can this instead be >> $(OBJTREE)/$(dir $@).$(notdir $@).dts or something like that? > > I didn't say header file. > > The nice thing about having everything in include/generated is that it > doesn't pollute the source for in-tree builds. Well, it's in a directory that's for generated headers; it has "/include/" in the path. I don't think we should put it somewhere that C code could accidentally #include it, irrespective of how (un-)likely that is to get passed review. Also, for in-tree builds, doesn't every single other derived file get put into the source tree? I'm not sure why this file would need to be special? >>> +$(DT_BIN): $(TOPDIR)/$(DTS_SRC) >>> rc=$$( \ >>> - cat $< | $(CPP) -P $(DTS_CPPFLAGS) - | \ >>> - { { $(DTC) -R 4 -p 0x1000 -O dtb -o ${DT_BIN} - 2>&1 ; \ >>> + cat $< | $(CPP) -P $(DTS_CPPFLAGS) - > $(DTS_TMP); \ >>> + { { $(DTC_CMD) 2>&1 ; \ >> ... >> >>> + if [ $$rc != 0 ]; then \ >>> + echo "Source file is $(DTS_SRC)"; \ >>> + echo "Compiler: $(DTC_CMD)"; \ >>> + fi; \ >> >> Isn't that what make V=1 is for? > > It produces about 800KB of other spiel though. If the build fails it > is already printing stuff out - so I find this useful. But again, why be special? I could apply the same argument to every single other C file where I might have typo'd something. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss