From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Kelly Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:19:25 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] sunxi: use CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE everywhere In-Reply-To: <8a2eda92-7f5d-0b57-04b3-45e831db99f0@xevo.com> References: <20180601005916.16277-1-mkelly@xevo.com> <20180601110523.vsrbsa4tvwnlwcic@flea> <19c3813e-fbd9-5d25-297e-cc90478d0c35@xevo.com> <20180604082105.btccwsb4lxfrjh6j@flea> <35118992-c6be-96dd-9c70-b5316e26232f@xevo.com> <20180606145821.ltbmj3uhkfo3awll@flea> <8a2eda92-7f5d-0b57-04b3-45e831db99f0@xevo.com> Message-ID: <0ff62355-afc0-c65d-8539-66f6b39467a3@xevo.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de (ping Jagan) On 06/06/2018 10:51 AM, Martin Kelly wrote: > On 06/06/2018 07:58 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 11:15:34AM -0700, Martin Kelly wrote: >>> [snip as the thread is getting long] >>> >>> On 06/04/2018 01:21 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 10:16:32AM -0700, Martin Kelly wrote: >>>>> On 06/01/2018 04:05 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I can see the issues with new defconfigs, but I'm not sure if it >>>>> will really >>>>> be that bad. If we apply this patch against sunxi master, then >>>>> shouldn't new >>>>> patches get tested and rebased against it? In that case, if they >>>>> have not >>>>> set DEFAULT_FDT_FILE, it will default to "", the boards won't boot, >>>>> and the >>>>> mistake must be fixed prior to merging. >>>> >>>> Unless one has tested it with a version prior to your patch, and sends >>>> it. Not a lot of people are testing with the next branch in the >>>> various trees. >>>> >>>>> Alternatively if we add the Kconfig boolean, we need to worry about >>>>> what >>>>> happens when people have DEFAULT_FDT_FILE set already. I guess we >>>>> would need >>>>> to default the new Kconfig boolean to be custom in order to keep those >>>>> configs from breaking. But if we do that, sunxi will break by >>>>> default (since >>>>> sunxi configs don't have the value set). >>>>> >>>>> What would you suggest the default value of the new boolean to be? >>>> >>>> config DEFAULT_FDT_FILE_USE_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE >>>>     bool "whatever" >>>>     default y if ARCH_ROCKCHIP >>>>     default y if ARCH_SUNXI >>>> >>>> and in the headers >>>> >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE_USE_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE >>>> #define CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE ".dtb" >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> And that's done. >>> >>> I didn't know Kconfig can set different default values for each >>> architecture like that; that does indeed solve the problem. However, >>> I don't think it's a good idea to have sunxi use an alternate >>> mechanism than the other boards. >>> >>> To be clear, are you proposing a general config option that would >>> apply to every board? In that case, the header logic would be in a >>> global header rather than a board-specific one. >> >> Yes, that's what I had in mind. >> >> Maxime >> > > OK, I can see the merits of that, though I think there's tradeoffs both > ways. > > Before I go ahead with a patch, Jagan: which approach would you prefer? Jagan, do you prefer Maxime's proposed approach, or my original patch? I am happy to go either way but want to confirm before proceeding.