On 7 October 2016 at 15:09, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 06:58:37PM -0700, Peter Maydell wrote: >> I think we have two choices: >> (1) just go ahead and remove the error-check, on the basis that: >> * for some boards -dtb is useful even without -kernel >> * -dtb might be ignored even with -kernel if the specified >> kernel isn't a DTB-aware kernel, but we ignore that >> * -dtb is ignored even with -kernel for target archs/boards >> which don't support or use DTB, and we don't warn about that >> * we don't warn about -kernel being useless for target boards >> that don't pay any attention to it >> (2) add some kind of field to MachineClass indicating whether >> the machine can handle dtb files with/without a kernel >> (and perhaps also whether the machine supports -kernel at all), >> use that to gate the warning messages, and update all the >> machines to correctly indicate what they can or can't handle. >> This would let us give warning messages when the user asks >> for something we're going to ignore (including letting us >> fix up some of the cases we don't currently deal with as >> enumerated above), but it would be a fair chunk of effort >> for a fairly small user-friendliness gain >> >> Thinking about it more, I'm inclining towards the simpler >> option (1). Paolo, do you have an opinion here ? > > The error check doesn't seem worth the effort. It's a convenience > message to notify users that their configuration is broken but we can't > detect all the cases where it's broken. It doesn't seem like a good > business to be in :).
I agree, so let's apply this patch as-is; added to target-arm.next. thanks -- PMM
