Re: Covering DT build in -next merge

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1531 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 01:20:26PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:16:21 PDT (-0700), broonie@kernel.org wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > I was wondering if it might be possible to add DTB builds for relevant
> > architecutres to the -next merge checks (everything except x86 AFAIK)?
> > Some current experience suggested to me that it might be helpful for
> > bisecting problems found in testing, breakage building the DTBs causes
> > hassle since where they're used in tree DTs are required to boot the
> > kernel.
> > 
> > At least for arm and arm64 the DT build is quick enough to be negligable
> > in the context of building the kernel itself so hopefully it shouldn't
> > add too much load to do this - it's just adding a 'make dtbs' (with
> > appropriate cross build options) to the kernel build.
> 
> Pretty sure we're in the same shape for RISC-V these days.

Yup, same deal on riscv pretty much. It takes less than 5 seconds to
build them all for riscv, and it would be a nice bare minimum check.
Certainly would be good to have it.

> +Conor, who
> would know for sure (as he made it work).

What I sorted out dtbs_check being warning central actually, and I
suppose it'd be nice to track new warnings added to dbts_check in next
automagically, but that build (single make job) takes 20 times longer
on riscv than just building the dtbs - and probably far longer on arm64.
It also requires keeping up fairly religiously with dt-schema, so
probably not a runner...



[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]