Hi all, On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 08:56, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 03:44:08PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: > > > > François Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> writes: > > > > > Hi Simon > > > > > > The only place I could agree with this file presence is in the > > > documentation directory, not in dts. It creates a mental picture for the > > > reader > > > an entirely bad mind scheme around Qemu and DT. > > > > > > And even in a documentation directory I would place a bug warning: don’t > > > use this with any kernel , Qemu generates a DT dynamically > > > based on cpu, memory and devices specified at the command line. > > > > Certainly for the arm, aarch64 and riscv "virt" machines you should > > always use the QEMU generated DTB. I'm not entirely clear what a > > qemu_arm and qemu_arm64 def targets are meant to be in this context. > > Agreed. We cannot include random device trees in U-Boot for devices > that generate their own at run time or otherwise have the source of > truth elsewhere.
Until we have a way of bringing in the u-boot.dtsi that people in QEMU can agree on, I don't see an alternative. I will send a series for the bloblist handoff next week and I think you will all see what I mean. Perhaps all this will be easier a year or so, if we continue to make progress on the devicetree validation/sharing stuff, but for now, this seems like the only viable approach to me. Regards, Simon