On 3/15/21 1:40 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 14-03-21, 20:16, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 3/12/21 11:11 PM, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 3/12/21 1:13 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>>> On 12-03-21, 01:09, Frank Rowand wrote: >>>>> I suggested having the .dtso files include the .dts file because that is >>>>> a relatively >>>>> small and easy change to test. What would probably make more sense is >>>>> the rename >>>>> the existing overlay .dts files to be .dtso files and then for each >>>>> overlay .dtso >>>>> file create a new .dts file that #includes the corresponding .dtso file. >>>>> This is >>>>> more work and churn, but easier to document that the .dts files are a >>>>> hack that is >>>>> needed so that the corresponding .dtb.S files will be generated. >>>> >>>> What about creating links instead then ? >>>> >>> >>> I don't really like the idea of using links here. >>> >>> Maybe it is best to make the changes needed to allow the unittest >>> overlays to be .dtso instead of .dts. >>> >>> Off the top of my head: >>> >>> scripts/Makefile.lib: >>> The rule for %.dtb.S invokes cmd_dt_S_dtb, which puts the >>> overlay data in section .dtb.init.rodata, with a label >>> pointing to the beginning of the overlay __dtb_XXX_begin and >>> a label pointing to the end of the overlay __dtb_XXX_end, >>> for the overlay named XXX. I _think_ that you could simply >>> add a corresponding rule for %.dtbo.S using a new command >>> cmd_dt_S_dtbo (the same as cmd_dt_S_dtb, except use labels >>> __dtbo_XXX_begin and __dtbo_XXX_end). >> >> If you do the above, please put it in drivers/of/unittest-data/Makefile >> instead of scripts/Makefile.lib because it is unittest.c specific and >> not meant to be anywhere else in the kernel. > > What about doing this then in unittest's Makefile instead (which I > already suggested earlier), that will make everything work just fine > without any other changes ? > > +# Required for of unittest files as they can't be renamed to .dtso > +$(obj)/%.dtbo: $(src)/%.dts $(DTC) FORCE > + $(call if_changed_dep,dtc) >
I should have looked at patch 3/5 more carefully instead of counting on Masahiro to check it out and simply build testing. Patch 3/5 does not seem correct. I'll look over all the makefile related changes that have been accepted (if any) and patch 3/5 later today (Tuesday). -Frank
