Hi Simon,
On 2015年12月29日 08:22, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 27 December 2015 at 19:16, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Thomas Chou <tho...@wytron.com.tw> wrote:
Use generic dtb rule with CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE, so that
there is no need to list all the dtb for different targets/boards.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Chou <tho...@wytron.com.tw>
Cc: Albert Aribaud <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net>
---
arch/arm/dts/Makefile | 192 +-------------------------------------------------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 191 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
The problem with these patches is that it prevents building all the
compatible device tree files for a board family. The default device
tree is just that - it is not the only one that can be used. A build
system can taken one of the output device tree files and package it
with U-Boot. If we don't build then, then that becomes impossible.
What is the purpose of these patches?
A better solution might be to add an option to list the files which
should be built. Then we gain control over this, if that is what you
are trying to achieve.
The device tree describes hardware. Each board is a hardware, and should
have only one device tree. The u-boot is a boot loader, which might have
different options to load the next stage, eg. Linux. As I see in the
configs/ dir, there can be several defconfig for a board and uses the
same device tree. With device tree controlled u-boot, the output is
u-boot-dtb.bin for each configuration.
The next stage, say, Linux, gets device tree from u-boot. A single
kernel can work on many different boards bond with possibly different
device tree blob and booting configuration.
We can use buildman to build a family of target binary including device
tree blob. So I don't see the reason to keep the list of device tree per
target.
Best regards,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
