On 25/09/2023 20.19, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:27:43AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> On 04/05/2023 14.35, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >>> On 03/05/2023 16.54, Tom Rini wrote: >> >>>> The one last problem now is on stm32mp15_dhcor_basic which is a >>>> defconfig missing one from OF_LIST but including it in the its file, so >>>> the above is the patch we need. >>>> >> >> Hi Tom >> >> Can I persuade you to try something like >> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/commit/a05e0d0e6b9103542a1076f9cab0005f400fa072 >> again, but leaving the .dtbo targets in there? >> >> I could send a patch, but it's entirely mechanical, and not really meant >> for being applied until we know if there's more to be cleaned up. > > So what ended up being the problem I think is the case Simon pointed out > where we do take the output from "make all" and concatenate one of the > dtbs that was generated with u-boot.img or so, and it works. But maybe > that should just list all of the valid DTBs that it needs in the > defconfig to start with? I don't quite know, it was a case I hadn't > considered at the time. >
Re-reading the thread, I can't see where that was mentioned. But yes, if some boards (still) need that, and have more than one possible .dtb, the board can't set an OF_LIST different from the default consisting of DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE because changing OF_LIST requires SPL_LOAD_FIT || MULTI_DTB_FIT. How do we figure out if such boards even exist? Rasmus
