[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 11/12] RFC: Use binman for a sunxi board

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On 1 October 2016 at 18:15, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:46:25AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> On 27 September 2016 at 19:55, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 03:52:27PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> >
>> >> Add an example usage of binman for a sunxi board. This involves adding the
>> >> image definition to the device tree and using it in the Makefile.
>> >>
>> >> This is for example only.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> Changes in v2: None
>> >>
>> >>  Makefile                            |  4 +---
>> >>  arch/arm/dts/sun7i-a20-pcduino3.dts | 12 ++++++++++++
>> >
>> > I think this shows the big problem with using binman today.  For the
>> > common case of ARM, where we sync in the dts* files from upstream, this
>> > will add hunks that must not be overwritten each time.
>> >
>> > Looking at scripts/Makefile.lib::cmd_fdt I wonder if we couldn't come up
>> > with some wildcard rule and check if, somewhere CONFIG'd ? $(BOARDDIR)/
>> > ? u-boot.dtsi exists add in -include that/file.dtsi to the CPP rule so
>> > that we can keep the parts that will never get upstream separate.
>>
>> We can do that, but I have found that most boards with the same SoC
>> are the same, or similar. So for x86 [1] I put it in a separate patch
>> with just an #include in the .dts file.
>>
>> We could have binman be a bit smarter about where it looks - e.g. if
>> there is no binman node, it could look in the same directory for a
>> file that matches the board name, or part of it?
>
> I'd really like to try and better solve the generic problem we have tho
> too while we're at it.  ie the u-boot,dm-pre-reloc tag on various nodes
> could also go into this file.

What sort of solution are you thinking of? A U-Boot .dtsi include that
is #included at the top of all files?

Regards,
Simon