From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 14:47:59 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] boot/uboot: add support for custom DT name In-Reply-To: <20181224131904.20891-1-kostap@marvell.com> References: <20181224131904.20891-1-kostap@marvell.com> Message-ID: <20181224144759.283fe055@windsurf.home> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello Kostya, +Clemens Gruber in Cc, who posted a related U-Boot patch. On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 15:19:04 +0200, kostap at marvell.com wrote: > From: Konstantin Porotchkin > > Some u-boot default configuration files could be shared between > targets and used for building images for multiple board types. > The only difference between such builds is the DTB embedded in > in the boot image for each specific platform. > This approach is widely used by Marvell, having the same u-boot > configuration file for the entire SoC family, but allowing builds > of multiple target flavors by supplying the device tree name through > make command parameter DEVICE_TREE=xxx > This patch adds such capability to uboot module of the buildroot. > The custome DT name could be defined by > BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_CUSTOM_DTS_NAME entry. > > Change-Id: I69e193339b0369a736bdf98491b9914d24a54e17 > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Porotchkin Reading this again, in fact it is very similar to patch http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/881197/ we already have in the queue. With a very important distinction: your patch passes DEVICE_TREE=, while the existing pending patch passes EXT_DTB=. The obvious question that comes up is: which one is right ? Or are these two orthogonal things ? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com