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

Simon Glass
2024-08-22T03:00:45Z

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?

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?

Regards,
SImon