On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 08:51:07PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 4:22 PM Tom Rini wrote: > > > > + * This is a diet version of the device tree from Linux, > > > + * suitable for U-Boot. > > > + */ > > > > We shouldn't need a diet version of the tree. If it's reasonably done > > and stable in the kernel, we can even move towards just passing the > > U-Boot tree along to Linux. > > The device tree is not stable in the kernel. > It exists in OpenWrt and the creators of the bmips target are > kind of absent for the moment. The reason it is not in Linux > is that the "switch ethernet" driver and bindings need to be > upstreamed before the device trees can be upstreamed. > > But I can try to bring in more of it for sure :) Just like ARM the goal is just to drop in the kernel dts here. > > > +++ b/board/inteno/xg6846/xg6846.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > > +/* > > > + * Copyright (C) 2023 Linus Walleij > > > + */ > > > + > > > +#include > > > > So basically just an empty object file. Can we just _not_ have > > something here, if we perhaps don't set SYS_BOARD? I assume if there's > > just nothing here the link rules fail. > > Admittedly my knowledge of U-Boot internals are not the > best and this is a bit of a copy and paste job from > board/comtrend/ar5387un/ar-5387un.c which looks like > this and sets a bad example I suppose. Yeah, I didn't know we had someone doing that already here, whoops. > I guess you are asking me to modify U-Boots build system to > make the whole .c and Makefile inside a board subdir optional > so we can delete all such empty boardfiles? Well, it'd sure be nice if we could avoid having a dummy C file. If it looks like a nightmare once you take a peek, we can just live with it. -- Tom