Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] dtc: Add dtb build information option

Steve McIntyre
2020-01-21T17:19:13Z

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 09:59:44AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 12:41 AM David Gibson
><david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>>
>> It's not really about who consumes it. It's about defining a
>> namespace for the new property to exist in, since it's not part of a
>> relevant standard (if we wanted to make it such, we should pin down
>> what goes in there with much more precision).
>
>I can't think of any cases of the 'linux' prefix not being about who
>consumes it. And we often end up dropping 'linux' because it turns out
>to not be Linux specific. I don't care to see u-boot,build-info,
>freebsd,build-info, etc. when a given dtb can only have 1 of those.

Yes, exactly. What would happen if somebody (tried to) fill in more
than one of XXXX.build-info? It makes no sense.

>My intent is this property name is added to the DT spec, but I don't
>agree we should define what's in it beyond a string. It is information
>that is useful for humans identifying what the dtb was built from.

Nod - defining this as a free-form string lets people put their own
information in, without us having to try and agree on a full spec
which we'll need to update as ideas change.

--
Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@linaro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs