On 13-08-13 09:35 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> wrote:
On 13-08-13 08:46 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> wrote:
On 13-08-12 11:37 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
As the Linux kernel, unconditionally, builds the dtc application and
it is the compatible version with the DeviceTree files shipped within
the kernel it is better to use it and the kernel build system to
generate the dtb files.
From my point of view, I agree with this. I've always pushed for using
all of the artifacts from the kernel built (uImage, dtb, etc) and this
is consistent with that approach.
Good.
Some DeviceTree files rely on CPP and kernel headers to be able to
generate the dtb binary contents and it is harder to replicate it
outside of Linux kernel build system so we /use/ it.
Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <ota...@ossystems.com.br>
---
NOTE: This depends on 'linux-dtb.inc: Replace /boot/ with
/${KERNEL_IMAGEDEST}/' patch
meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-dtb.inc | 59
+++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-dtb.inc
b/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-dtb.inc
index 41dd599..a65f8bd 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-dtb.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-dtb.inc
@@ -1,44 +1,39 @@
# Support for device tree generation
FILES_kernel-devicetree = "/${KERNEL_IMAGEDEST}/devicetree*"
-KERNEL_DEVICETREE_FLAGS ?= "-R 8 -p 0x3000"
python __anonymous () {
- devicetree = d.getVar("KERNEL_DEVICETREE", True) or ''
- if devicetree:
- depends = d.getVar("DEPENDS", True)
- d.setVar("DEPENDS", "%s dtc-native" % depends)
- packages = d.getVar("PACKAGES", True)
- d.setVar("PACKAGES", "%s kernel-devicetree" % packages)
+ d.appendVar("PACKAGES", " kernel-devicetree")
What if someone, somewhere needs a custom dtc. Can we still trigger
a dependency on dtc-native is a different flag is set ?
The Kernel does not provide a way to 'override' it; it always use it
from scripts/dtc and it is the compatible version with the DeviceTree
files shipped within the kernel, so it is better to use it and the
kernel build system to generate the dtb files.
What I meant was not to override the kernel's dtc, but to simply fall
back to the old dtc-native reaching into the tree and compiling the
dts. That way we have flexibility as a fall back.
I think it will make the code much harder to follow and I am unsure we
will have it in a flexible enough way; for example if user uses kernel
headers for pins and like, it won't work, and it will be hard to come
up with something which could comply with all this. As this .inc file
is intended for 'in kernel build' it does not seems worth it.
I have to agree. I knew it was a bit of a stretch. ultimate flexibility
is not always a good thing.
If this causes a problem for someone, we can consider their patches to
fall back to an out of tree build :)
Cheers,
Bruce
}
do_install_append() {
+ bbwarn "ARRG"
if test -n "${KERNEL_DEVICETREE}"; then
- for DTS_FILE in ${KERNEL_DEVICETREE}; do
- if [ ! -f ${DTS_FILE} ]; then
- echo "Warning: ${DTS_FILE} is not
available!"
- continue
+ for DTB in ${KERNEL_DEVICETREE}; do
+ if echo ${DTB} | grep -q '/dts/'; then
+ bbwarn "${DTB} points to the full path
dts
file while it should have the target for use."
This isn't reading right to me. What are you trying to say ? That
KERNEL_DEVICE_TREE should be the name of the dts and not the path
to that dts ? I'd say 'name' versus target.
You should name it 'imx6q-sabresd.dtb' for example.
right, that's what I always do myself. So I'm really just suggesting that
the bbwarn message be a bit more clear. i.e.
bbwarn "${DTB} contains the full path to the the dts file, but only the
dtb name should be used."
Great; changed for v2
What about testing for it's existence ? The old code used to do that.
It will fail if you ask it to build an invalid dtb file.
+ DTB=`basename ${DTB} | sed
's,\.dts$,.dtb,g'`
From the description of the patch .. this part is unexpected.
You are changing more than what is used to compile the dtb,
but the processing of the options.
It is not; I need to call it with the target. This is to support
converting from 'current' use to 'new' use and keep backward
compatibility.
Right, so you are switching to dtb, which the kernel expects, not
dts. The commit message should make this clear, right now it
doesn't. You need to understand what the kernel is looking for to
know why the change is being made.
Ok; Changed for v2.
fi
- DTS_BASE_NAME=`basename ${DTS_FILE} | awk -F "."
'{print $1}'`
- DTB_NAME=`echo ${KERNEL_IMAGE_BASE_NAME} | sed
"s/${MACHINE}/${DTS_BASE_NAME}/g"`
- DTB_SYMLINK_NAME=`echo
${KERNEL_IMAGE_SYMLINK_NAME} | sed "s/${MACHINE}/${DTS_BASE_NAME}/g"`
- dtc -I dts -O dtb ${KERNEL_DEVICETREE_FLAGS} -o
${DTS_BASE_NAME} ${DTS_FILE}
- install -m 0644 ${DTS_BASE_NAME}
${D}/${KERNEL_IMAGEDEST}/devicetree-${DTB_SYMLINK_NAME}.dtb
+ DTB_BASE_NAME=`basename ${DTB} .dtb`
+ DTB_NAME=`echo ${KERNEL_IMAGE_BASE_NAME} | sed
"s/${MACHINE}/${DTB_BASE_NAME}/g"`
+ DTB_SYMLINK_NAME=`echo
${KERNEL_IMAGE_SYMLINK_NAME} | sed "s/${MACHINE}/${DTB_BASE_NAME}/g"`
+ oe_runmake ${DTB}
The change log should explain this as well. You are switching the
naming to DTB from the old DTS .. because ? The kernel build
requires it ? something else ? You tell me :)
This is to support converting from 'current' use to 'new' use and keep
backward compatibility.
+ install -m 0644 ${B}/arch/${ARCH}/boot/${DTB}
${D}/${KERNEL_IMAGEDEST}/devicetree-${DTB_SYMLINK_NAME}.dtb
done
fi
}
do_deploy_append() {
if test -n "${KERNEL_DEVICETREE}"; then
- for DTS_FILE in ${KERNEL_DEVICETREE}; do
- if [ ! -f ${DTS_FILE} ]; then
- echo "Warning: ${DTS_FILE} is not
available!"
- continue
+ for DTB in ${KERNEL_DEVICETREE}; do
+ if echo ${DTB} | grep -q '/dts/'; then
+ bbwarn "${DTB} points to the full path
dts
file while it should have the target for use. "
+ DTB=`basename ${DTB} | sed
's,\.dts$,.dtb,g'`
Given that the old and new code repeats this block .. is there an
opportunity to factor it out into a function ?
In a new patch?
Could be, or just as part of this one. Either way works.
Ok; I will take a look on that.
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
