Hi Tom, On 1 October 2016 at 18:15, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:46:25AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 27 September 2016 at 19:55, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:52:27PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> > >> >> Add an example usage of binman for a sunxi board. This involves adding the >> >> image definition to the device tree and using it in the Makefile. >> >> >> >> This is for example only. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> Changes in v2: None >> >> >> >> Makefile | 4 +--- >> >> arch/arm/dts/sun7i-a20-pcduino3.dts | 12 ++++++++++++ >> > >> > I think this shows the big problem with using binman today. For the >> > common case of ARM, where we sync in the dts* files from upstream, this >> > will add hunks that must not be overwritten each time. >> > >> > Looking at scripts/Makefile.lib::cmd_fdt I wonder if we couldn't come up >> > with some wildcard rule and check if, somewhere CONFIG'd ? $(BOARDDIR)/ >> > ? u-boot.dtsi exists add in -include that/file.dtsi to the CPP rule so >> > that we can keep the parts that will never get upstream separate. >> >> We can do that, but I have found that most boards with the same SoC >> are the same, or similar. So for x86 [1] I put it in a separate patch >> with just an #include in the .dts file. >> >> We could have binman be a bit smarter about where it looks - e.g. if >> there is no binman node, it could look in the same directory for a >> file that matches the board name, or part of it? > > I'd really like to try and better solve the generic problem we have tho > too while we're at it. ie the u-boot,dm-pre-reloc tag on various nodes > could also go into this file.
What sort of solution are you thinking of? A U-Boot .dtsi include that is #included at the top of all files? Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot