[PATCH v6 09/25] arm: xenguest_arm64: Add a fake devicetree file

[François Ozog]

Hi Simon

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 19:29, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi François,
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 11:17, François Ozog <francois.ozog at linaro.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 19:05, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 10:56, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 05:40:46PM +0000, Oleksandr Andrushchenko
> wrote:
> >> > > Hi, Simon!
> >> > >
> >> > > Sorry for being late to the party
> >> > >
> >> > > On 02.12.21 17:59, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> > > > Add an empty file to prevent build errors when building with
> >> > > > CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE enabled.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The build instructions in U-Boot do not provide enough detail to
> build a
> >> > > > useful devicetree, unfortunately.
> >> > > Xen guest doesn't use any built-in device trees as the guest's
> device tree is provided
> >> > > by the Xen hypervisor itself and is generated at the virtual
> machine creation time: it is
> >> > > populated with memory size, number of CPUs etc. based on [1].
> >> > > So, even if we provide some device tree here it must not be used by
> U-boot at
> >> > > the end of the day. Thus, it might be a reasonable solution to
> provide an empty device
> >> > > tree as you do, but put a comment that it is not used.
> >> >
> >> > So another example of why this series is taking things in the wrong
> >> > direction.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > I only had that comment in mind: "there is none so deaf as he who will
> not hear."
>
> Hey, stop the pile-on. It's not useful.
>
> I've guided U-Boot's use of devicetree for 10 years successfully. The
> current state is a mess and I just to straighten it out.
>
> I admire your talent and knowledge.
I know you are 99,99% of the time correct and spot on for your comments in
many meetings we were attending.
When you questioned a number of points I made, I first tried to understand
what I got wrong because you said it.
And you were right ;-)
For this topic, I made every effort to come to your position, but
definitively can't.


>>
> >> At least we might figure out where to get the DT and how to run
> >> Xen with U-Boot. I don't see any down-side to having a basic DT in the
> >> tree along with instructions on how to run Xen.
> >
> > If an EMPTY device is what is required to pass current build
> constraints, so be it, and let's correct that in a later patch. And EMPTY
> is not basic.
>
> The problem here is a difference in philosophy around device tree.
>
> Indeed!

> Regards,
> Simon
>


-- 
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Business Development*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog at linaro.org | Skype: ffozog