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. >> >> At least we might figure out where to get the DT and how to run >> Xen with U-Boot. I don't see any down-side to having a basic DT in the >> tree along with instructions on how to run Xen. > > If an EMPTY device is what is required to pass current build constraints, so > be it, and let's correct that in a later patch. And EMPTY is not basic. The problem here is a difference in philosophy around device tree. Regards, Simon
