[U-Boot] [ANN] U-Boot v2017.07-rc2 released

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 10:45:52AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:27:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 21 June 2017 at 01:07, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> Simon, do you have some suggestions on what to do here?  Thanks!
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>> Tom
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> My guess is that there is already a libfdt.py in the system. Someone
> >> >>>>>> else reported this too.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> We could perhaps change the ordering in PYTHONPATH so that our one is first.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> No, I'm not sure that's completely the case because I first saw a
> >> >>>>> related issue before my dtc had the python patch set added to it, I
> >> >>>>> would actually prefer to build with the distro dtc rather than a fork
> >> >>>>> of upstream like we use to.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> OK I think I see what is happening then. It seems to be picking up
> >> >>>> _libfdt.so from your system and libfdy.py from U-Boot. If so that
> >> >>>> seems like a bad idea at the best of times.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Despite upstreaming efforts we still have local libfdt changes in
> >> >>>> U-Boot. The main one is fdtgrep. I did try to upstream it a while back
> >> >>>> but failed. I've been thinking of trying again but have not mustered
> >> >>>> the energy.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This particular error could probably be worked around in the short
> >> >>>> term by dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP. But do we really want to allow this
> >> >>>> sort of thing? I think we should either use one libfdt module or the
> >> >>>> other, not a mixture of the two
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I suspect your right but I don't want to get into a situation where
> >> >>> something might work in the kernel and and not in u-boot or
> >> >>> vice-versa, and as things like overlays come into play where they
> >> >>> could be applied to either the possible differences get greater and
> >> >>> from a distro PoV that increased the requirements of support and debug
> >> >>> and believe me people will do weird shit that they expect you to
> >> >>> magically fix with little information hence my reluctance to diverge.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not sure what to do about this other than what I suggested. I
> >> >> wonder it if is possible to detect the case where there is a mismatch
> >> >> with the installation?
> >> >
> >> > Was that dropping FDT_ERR_TOODEEP? Why do we diverge from upstream on
> >> > this, what does it do? Maybe provide an option to specify whether to
> >> > use external dtc or bundled?
> >>
> >> So dropping dtc from our deps to try and get anything on 2017.07 built
> >> I get for a bunch of devices I get this:
> >>
> >> /builddir/build/BUILD/u-boot-2017.07-rc3/scripts/dtc-version.sh: line
> >> 18: dtc: command not found
> >> rm -f .tmp_quiet_recordmcount
> >> *** Your dtc is too old, please upgrade to dtc 1.4 or newer
> >>
> >> Can we please have some level of resolution for 2017.07 GA?
> >
> > Can we short term do the thing where I guess it was PYTHONPATH gets
> > modified so that you only pick up U-Boot provided parts here?
> 
> Sure, as long as we have a commitment to a read fix for 2017.09

The "real" fix is to get upstream libfdt stuff in sync with us again,
yes?  If so, yes, I think we can agree that we need to sync up with them
and get on the same page.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20170709/4b3c320a/attachment.sig>