Re: Device Tree Evolution Project - call notes - 12th February

[Steve McIntyre <steve.mcintyre-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

Hey Frank,

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:24:59AM -0600, Frank Rowand wrote:
>On 2/13/20 8:50 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:

...

>> 2. Bootloader applied overlays
>>    a. https://github.com/wmamills/dt-overlays
>>       1. BM: Good discussion on the list. Is this a new agreement on
>>          accepting overlays in the kernel? Is there still a laundry
>>          list of issues?
>>       2. RH: Whilst we agree it’s the right place last time it was
>>          submitted I gave feedback and it was never acted on. If
>>          splitting to base and overlays need a way to get back to what
>>          you previously had.
>>       3. BM: Do you want to mash base and overlays together. I think
>>          we tried to upstream that and it was rejected.
>>       4. RH: Just need to change DTB format first … (Frank)
>
>That matches my memory of wanting to update the DTB format before allowing
>overlay sources into the kernel tree.  BUT, it has been two years (I
>think) of small bursts of discussion about DTB format with little
>forward progress.  I had hoped to revive the DTB format discussion in
>December or January, but now it is already February.  Maybe I will get
>to it this month.
>
>The biggest change since then is that overlays can be applied by the
>bootloader (at least I think that was implemented after my objection).
>That alone is enough to change my opinion.  But on top of that, the
>long delay on DTB format update also changes my opinion.

Do you have any pointers to previous discussions about the format
update please? The only relevant things I can find are in the thread
"DTBO magic and dtbo format options" but that's back in the middle of
2016.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve McIntyre                                steve.mcintyre-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs