Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] buildman: Allow skipping the dtc build

Simon Glass
2024-08-22T14:15:56Z

Hi Tom,

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 08:10, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 09:00:25PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 at 17:53, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 at 11:22, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 01:57:45PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > For most boards, the device-tree compiler is built in-tree, ignoring the
> > > > > system version. Add a special option to skip this build. This can be
> > > > > useful when the system dtc is up-to-date, as it speeds up the build.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > (no changes since v1)
> > > > >
> > > > > tools/buildman/builder.py | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > tools/buildman/builderthread.py | 4 ++--
> > > > > tools/buildman/buildman.rst | 3 +++
> > > > > tools/buildman/cmdline.py | 2 ++
> > > > > tools/buildman/control.py | 3 ++-
> > > > > tools/buildman/test.py | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 6 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > We should probably do this more generically, outside of buildman. We
> > > > have scripts/dtc-version.sh and if the system version isn't new enough
> > > > (and we just need to define whatever the minimum version is), then we
> > > > build our (not currently that new anymore) dtc instead.
> > >
> > > Yes I think I did a patch for that ages ago [1], but it was rejected.
> > >
> > > I'd be very happy for it to be applied as I think it is a better
> > > solution than this one.
> > >
> > > I see that some poor sod tried to do this in Linux this morning.
> >
> > Any thoughts on that patch?
>
> I'm open to re-considering [1] again, but we need to handle the warning
> problem first. That means...
>
> > Also I do see one problem. Newer dtc version produce a lot of
> > warnings, which causes CI to fail. So if we always use the newest
> > version, people are going to see a ton of warnings when they run
> > locally. Am I missing something here?
>
> Well, it would be great to get our Kbuild logic anywhere close to
> in-sync again with upstream. But syncing up the disabling warning flags
> shouldn't be too hard.

Have you talked to Linaro about taking this on? It becomes more and
more important as time goes on.

Regards,
Simon