Hi Simon,
On 2016年01月05日 08:56, Simon Glass wrote:
One of the benefits of device tree is that we can run the same code
paths on multiple boards. Then buildman has less work to do. For
example, if it builds 'snow' then we know that 'pit' and 'pi' are good
also. If you change the way device trees work then we lose this
benefit. It would be great if we could build (say) 100 boards for 100%
code coverage instead of 1000 boards.
If you can find a way to build all the device tree files for a
particular SoC without listing them out in the Makefile, then fine.
But I really don't want to lose that feature. It is very useful.
I am preparing an update v2 to support building list of DT from configs.
By adding support of list to DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE,
This option specifies a space-separated list of Device Tree used
for DT control. Each DT in the list will be compiled. The first will be
used as default to ship.
Another example is sandbox, which builds both 'sandbox.dts' and
'test.dts'. It allows us to run a test easily:
./sandbox/u-boot -d sandbox/arch/sandbox/dts/test.dtb -c "ut dm
usb_kdb" for example.
If we didn't have that it would be a right pain to run tests.
No problem. The test.dtb rules is retained.
I still don't understand what problem you are trying to solve. Can you
explain again what is wrong with the status quo?
The current build generate too many DTB that users probably don't
want/need. And the arch//dts/Makefile grows fat as every new
board/target add lines to it. There should be some way to handle it in a
cleaner style.
Best regards,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
