From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 892AEC6FA99 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 09:46:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2D586026; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 10:46:24 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="sZbP7TZ0"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 1592586023; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 10:46:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D63286027 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 10:46:20 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (85-76-49-20-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.49.20]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76A80814; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 10:46:18 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1678614379; bh=MoX8Ou8RGaMlyiKmz1FCDVCDSkUOUpG+LewObqFvaJ4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=sZbP7TZ0Feuie4XuZspKqAxWpXQuqlYqnmXvNEPYetR5YmIBbyjjplv3CD6P4V0TU uOiwcOJuRFzP8zkZRup3W+IMGPtdLHX7on54hEe0nMXAhu7YjY2j7MiZA20uQnIAiz 3r8nDj2Y26iBEfvDgzz5+LthXbtuMndN0A3d/TLs= Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 11:46:19 +0200 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Tom Rini Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de, Marek Vasut , Praneeth Bajjuri , Maxime Ripard , Simon Glass Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] lib/Kconfig: Enable OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY by default when FIT is enabled Message-ID: <20230312094619.GD707@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20230129163022.13221-1-laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> <20230310181224.GA4089221@bill-the-cat> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230310181224.GA4089221@bill-the-cat> X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.8 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean Hi Tom, On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 01:12:24PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 06:30:22PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > FIT image support is commonly used to bundle a kernel image, a device > > tree, and device tree overlays. Applying overlays requires the > > OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY config option to be set, which lots of boards fail to > > select, most likely because developers never noticed. This leads to an > > error when trying to apply overlays: > > > > "config with overlays but CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY not set" > > > > TI ARM boards select the option by default. Extend this to all systems > > that select the FIT option. This only affects the default, overlay > > support can still be disabled manually in the configuration. > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart > > Reviewed-by: Marek Vasut > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass > > --- > > I'm posting this as an RFC to get feedback. If the idea is generally > > appreciated, I'll update the defconfig files accordingly. > > Alright, so, I put this through a world build, and most platforms grow > by 4-5kB. Thank you for testing this, despite the patch falling off my radar. > I think that means what I'd really like to see as a starting > point is more SoCs doing an "imply OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY if OF_LIBFDT && FIT" > or adding to the default y list below, or similar. If that brings us to > the point where a good number of ARM boards with FIT are enabling it, we > can default y if ARM, for example. But right now it's more like several > hundred boards growing in size, which is uncomfortable, given the size > it's growing by. I'm fine with that. I've submitted the original patch because I had to update a vendor-supplied U-Boot binary to get overlay support, which ended up being a bit rabbit hole for various reasons. I thought it would be nice to save users from this kind of trouble. I can send patches to enable the option for SoC I care about, but generally speaking, who should decide which SoC(s) should imply OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart