From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:05:48 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] boot/uboot: Really use host-dtc In-Reply-To: References: <20180726103630.8643-1-david.degrave@mind.be> <20180726103630.8643-2-david.degrave@mind.be> <20180728214834.3496b200@windsurf> <20180731205154.62967de8@windsurf> Message-ID: <20180801090548.0c92457b@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 00:14:08 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > > I think the optional dependency on host-dtc depends from a time where > > U-Boot did not have its own copy of DTC. I'm not sure it makes a lot of > > sense now. > > ... but we still want to support those older U-Boot versions, so we can't > remove it. Absolutely. But the case found by David is not a case where U-Boot needs a DTC available on the host: it tries to use its own internal DTC, but forgets to build it. That's a bug in U-Boot. > Ideally, we should find out between which two versions it is needed, and > mention that in the help text. > > > If U-Boot tries to use ./scripts/dtc/dtc, then it should have built it. > > If it didn't build it but tries to use it nonetheless, it sounds like a > > bug in U-Boot. > > Oh yes, now I see it, it's indeed a bug in U-Boot. CONFIG_OF_LIST should either > depend on CONFIG_OF_CONTROL or select it, otherwise dtc is not built. Right, so it's indeed a bug in U-Boot. That being said, the change proposed by David is not too bad: it makes sense to use the host DTC if it was built, rather than the one built by U-Boot. It's just that the initial problem explanation wasn't really complete enough, so I was a bit confused. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com