On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here? Thanks! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> Tom >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone >> >>>>>> else reported this too. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is >> >>>>>> first. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a >> >>>>> related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I >> >>>>> would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork >> >>>>> of upstream like we use to. >> >>>> >> >>>> OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up >> >>>> _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that >> >>>> seems like a bad idea at the best of times. >> >>>> >> >>>> Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in >> >>>> U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back >> >>>> but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered >> >>>> the energy. >> >>>> >> >>>> This particular error could probably be worked around in the short >> >>>> term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this >> >>>> sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the >> >>>> other, not a mixture of the two >> >>> >> >>> I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where >> >>> something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or >> >>> vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they >> >>> could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and >> >>> from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug >> >>> and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to >> >>> magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I >> >> wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch >> >> with the installation? >> > >> > Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on >> > this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to >> > use external dtc or bundled? >> >> So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built >> I get for a bunch of devices I get this: >> >> /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line >> 18: dtc: command not found >> rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount >> *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer >> >> Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA? > > Can we short term do the thing where I guess it was PYTHONPATH gets > modified so that you only pick up U-Boot provided parts here?
Sure, as long as we have a commitment to a read fix for 2017.09 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
