Hi Tom, On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 at 05:14, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 12:23:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi François, > > > > On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 11:44, François Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 19:29, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi François, > > >> > > >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 11:17, François Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi Simon > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 19:05, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Hi Tom, > > >> >> > > >> >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 10:56, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 05:40:46PM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > Hi, Simon! > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Sorry for being late to the party > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > On 02.12.21 17:59, Simon Glass wrote: > > >> >> > > > Add an empty file to prevent build errors when building with > > >> >> > > > CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE enabled. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > The build instructions in U-Boot do not provide enough detail > > >> >> > > > to build a > > >> >> > > > useful devicetree, unfortunately. > > >> >> > > Xen guest doesn't use any built-in device trees as the guest's > > >> >> > > device tree is provided > > >> >> > > by the Xen hypervisor itself and is generated at the virtual > > >> >> > > machine creation time: it is > > >> >> > > populated with memory size, number of CPUs etc. based on [1]. > > >> >> > > So, even if we provide some device tree here it must not be used > > >> >> > > by U-boot at > > >> >> > > the end of the day. Thus, it might be a reasonable solution to > > >> >> > > provide an empty device > > >> >> > > tree as you do, but put a comment that it is not used. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > So another example of why this series is taking things in the wrong > > >> >> > direction. > > >> >> > > >> >> Why? > > >> > > > >> > I only had that comment in mind: "there is none so deaf as he who will > > >> > not hear." > > >> > > >> Hey, stop the pile-on. It's not useful. > > >> > > >> I've guided U-Boot's use of devicetree for 10 years successfully. The > > >> current state is a mess and I just to straighten it out. > > >> > > > I admire your talent and knowledge. > > > I know you are 99,99% of the time correct and spot on for your comments > > > in many meetings we were attending. > > > When you questioned a number of points I made, I first tried to > > > understand what I got wrong because you said it. > > > And you were right ;-) > > > For this topic, I made every effort to come to your position, but > > > definitively can't. > > > > Thank you. I think this will come together in a few years when > > devicetree is sorted out in U-Boot and Binman is more widely used. > > > > For this series, if and when it is applied, I predict: > > - it will not cause any confusion > > - it will aid development > > - it will help with discoverability, pressuring people to explain how > > to build for their systems > > - it will be a good basis for future work (we have a long list) > > - everyone will wonder what the fuss was about > > > > Here is the commit that introduced OF_PRIOR_STAGE. It attracted no > > such push-back. > > > > commit 894c3ad27fa940beb7fdc07d01dcfe81c03d0481 > > Author: Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitz...@fitzsim.org> > > Date: Fri Jun 8 17:59:45 2018 -0400 > > > > board: arm: Add support for Broadcom BCM7445 > > > > Add support for loading U-Boot on the Broadcom 7445 SoC. This port > > assumes Broadcom's BOLT bootloader is acting as the second stage > > bootloader, and U-Boot is acting as the third stage bootloader, loaded > > as an ELF program by BOLT. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitz...@fitzsim.org> > > Cc: Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> > > Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> > > I want to cycle back over here. Yes, historically a number of things > came in that perhaps shouldn't have. I went with "well, this is what we > need to handle this case I suppose" and applied it.
Yes and we need to move things forward. We can't just object to things without an alternative. As I have mentioned before, I think, I did actually review this (there was a question about sequence numbers or something) and didn't even notice the devicetree thing! It should have been a separate patch, I suppose. But even with the other patch (OF_BOARD), I did not at the time understand the implications. I feel very bad about the situation we are in and I wish I had thought it through properly at the time. Mea culpa. Regards, Simon