On 12/28/23 15:26, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 01:37:49PM +0000, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 1:20 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 08:23:57AM +0000, Simon Glass wrote:
Build devicetree files using the normal SoC-generic rule. For
microblaze there is actually only one SoC and one board.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
---
arch/microblaze/dts/Makefile | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/microblaze/dts/Makefile b/arch/microblaze/dts/Makefile
index 427a8f9aaca..adc76ddf21f 100644
--- a/arch/microblaze/dts/Makefile
+++ b/arch/microblaze/dts/Makefile
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
-dtb-y += $(shell echo $(CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE)).dtb
+dtb-$(CONFIG_MICROBLAZE) += microblaze-generic.dtb
include $(srctree)/scripts/Makefile.dts
This (and nios2 and perhaps a few other arches) show that it would be
easier to just drop the dts- line as it adds nothing over what
scripts/Makefile.dts gives us.
For consistency I like to see a rule for each .dtb in the directory.
Yes, and for consistency I'd like to see Makefiles be as minimal as
required.
I wonder how this will interact with
OF_UPSTREAM and how it compares with arch/microblaze/boot/dts/system.dts
in the linux kernel.
I don't see any interaction. Perhaps the maintainer can move this to
OF_UPSTREAM?
Well, that's the big question here, how exactly does microblaze work
with device trees? The U-Boot one is basically empty. I think we're both
going to be waiting on Michal now :)
U-Boot and Linux DT is just for reference. There is no really golden DT to use.
Every design is different and I am fine with completely remove their content but
I would like to keep just one empty DT as we have now in u-boot.
The reason is that when you have your own design and you want to test it quickly
you can just cp your new file over microblaze-generic.dts with existing makefile
rule and build u-boot with OF embed and just test it.
In Linux there is very old DT and I should likely remove it completely. It
targets designed which were used a lot of years ago and definitely not passing
any dt schema validation.
Thanks,
Michal
