Re: [PATCH 1/2] fdt: Allow stacked overlays phandle references

[David Gibson <david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2356 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:06:49AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 07/14/17 00:21, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> 
> Keeping in mind that this thread was originally about libfdt,
> not the Linux kernel, I am mostly talking about the Linux
> kernel implementation in this email.
> 
> 
> > Hi Frank,
> > 
> > On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 14:40 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 07/13/17 14:22, Phil Elwell wrote:
> >>> On 13/07/2017 21:07, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >>>> On 07/13/17 12:38, Phil Elwell wrote:
> >>>>
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> >>> hope an inability to solve the problem posed by this advanced usage won't
> >>> prevent a solution to a simpler problem from being accepted.
> > 
> > I have waited until people started commenting on this patchset before
> > replying.
> > 
> > I think we agree on a few things to keep the discussion moving forward.
> > 
> > 1. Stacked overlays are useful and make overlays easier to use.
> 
> Stacked overlays are required to handle an add-on board that
> contains physical connectors to plug in yet more things.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say they "make overlays
> easier to use".  Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
> 
> 
> > 2. Changing the overlay symbols format now would be unwise.
> 
> I strongly disagree.  I would say that it is desirable to maintain
> the current overlay format (not just __symbols__), and that there
> will be pain (for bootloaders???) if the format changes.  But
> the Linux implementation is not locked in if there is a good
> reason to change the format.
> 
> 
> > 3. A number of extensions have been put forward/requested.
> > 
> > 3.1. There should be a method to place a symbol on a node that didn't
> > have one originally (due to vendor supplying broken DTB or being
> > generated by firmware at runtime).
> 
> You saw my reaction of what to do about a broken vendor DTB in that
> thread.  I do not think this method is a good idea.
> 
> I don't know why a DTB generated by firmware would be missing a symbol.
> Was that discussed in that thread, and I'm just forgetting it?

Because 9 times out of 10, firmware is crap?

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]