[PATCH 0/9] dts: Move to SoC-specific build rules

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 03:09:40PM +0000, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 2:23 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 01:37:07PM +0000, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 1:21 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 08:23:56AM +0000, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > U-Boot builds devicetree binaries from its source tree. As part of the
> > > > > Kconfig conversion, the Makefiles were updated to align with how this
> > > > > is done in Linux: a single target for each SoC is used to build all the
> > > > > .dtb files for that SoC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since then, the Makefiles have devolved in some cases, resulting in
> > > > > lots of target-specific build rules. Also Linux has moved to using
> > > > > subdirectories for each vendor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Recent work aims to allow U-Boot to directly use devicetree files from
> > > > > Linux. This would be easier if the directory structure were the same.
> > > > > Another recent discussion involved dropping the build rules altogether.
> > > > >
> > > > > This series makes a start at cleaning up some of the build rules, to
> > > > > reduce the amount of code and make it easier to add new boards for the
> > > > > same SoC.
> > > > >
> > > > > One issue is that the ARCH_xxx Kconfig options between U-Boot and Linux
> > > > > are not always the same. Given the large number of SoCs and boards
> > > > > supported by U-Boot, it would be useful to align these where possible.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why we should start with this now, and further not being on
> > > > top of Sumit's series to remove our duplicate dts files. And that's
> > > > where we can have the conversation about for which cases it even makes
> > > > sense to build all of the dts files for a given SoC.
> > >
> > > This is a completely different series - there are no conflicts with
> > > Sumit's series so it can be applied before or after it.
> > >
> > > My goal here is to clean up our build rules, rather than just throwing
> > > them all away, for reasons we have discussed previously. I filed [1]
> > > to track that.
> >
> > Yes, I'm saying we shouldn't be doing anything this series does until
> > after Sumit's series has landed. Along with the fact that I don't like
> > what's going on in this series.
> 
> This seems to again be the disagreement over whether a single DT
> should be build for each board, or all the DTs for an SoC?

It's about the disagreement on what we should be building, and what that
infrastructure looks like. I do not like adding extra rules for
"clarity" because they don't make things clearer, they lead to the
unclear mess we have today getting worse. Most instructions are _not_
"now take this dtb and this binary and .." but just "take this binary",
because we already have the rules and logic to ensure we build the
required dtbs. I also don't like the parts of this series that amount
to deck shuffling when we should just be taking the chairs away. There's
just not nor will there be a case for omap3/4/5 platforms of "change the
dtb", so building more is pointless. For other SoCs, there may be some
cases of "this could have been just a DT change", like
rock5b-rk3588_defconfig / rock5a-rk3588s_defconfig could share a board
dir, but the configs are different and the dts are different, so I don't
know that you could really just swap the dtbs.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20231228/1f1bf622/attachment.sig>