Hi François, On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 at 10:03, François Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 at 17:04, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> 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 far as I can follow the threads, I proposed the dts to be empty to pass > compilation and move forward, but I think you haven't replied. The empty dts > can contain a comment pointing to documentation, which could describe the DT > lifecycle of the platform, and a template dts that could be used for > adventurous developers.
That does not go far enough for me. We actually do want to be able to build U-Boot and run it on the board, e.g. in a lab. We cannot do that if there are manual instructions involved. The onus needs to be on contributors to make their boards actually buildable/bootable with U-Boot. [..] REgards, Simon
