From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:30:44 +0900
Subject: [U-Boot] [U-Boot, v3,
	1/3] dts: re-write dts/Makefile more simply with Kbuild
In-Reply-To: <20140219211111.GQ19081@bill-the-cat>
References: <1391567307-27434-2-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
	<20140219211111.GQ19081@bill-the-cat>
Message-ID: <20140220183043.A196.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hello Tom, Simon,

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:11:11 -0500
Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:28:25AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 
> > Useful rules in scripts/Makefile.lib allows us to easily
> > generate a device tree blob and wrap it in assembly code.
> > 
> > We do not need to parse a linker script to get output format and arch.
> > 
> > This commit deletes ./u-boot.dtb since it is a copy of dts/dt.dtb.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
> 
> Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Tom


Ditto.
Possibly it was missed because Simon and I were discussing
in version 2 thread.


> > >
> > > Besides,  dts/dt.dtb is a prerequisite of dts/dt.dtb.S
> > > when CONFIG_OF_EMBED is enabled.
> > >
> > > I believe keeping dts/dt.dtb is reasonable enough.
> > >
> > > Better to keep both?
> > 
> > Yes I think so.
> 
> 
> OK.
> I will revive ./u-boot.dtb and post a new version.
> 
> And I will send it as a single patch
> dropping 2/3 and 3/3.
> Do you think it's better?
> 
> Many kbuild-related patches are being stuck on patchwork
> and my local branch is getting messed up.
> I don't want to delay this patch any more.


I was planning to post a new version.
But before that, version 3 was applied.

So, what should I do?
Shall I post a follow-up patch to revive a
device tree at the top directory (./u-boot.dtb) ?



Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada