* Re: Covering DT build in -next merge
[not found] <ZS7rlTZLr0m1OEv8@sirena.org.uk>
@ 2023-10-17 20:20 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2023-10-18 6:11 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Palmer Dabbelt @ 2023-10-17 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: broonie, Conor Dooley; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel, soc
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. +Conor, who
would know for sure (as he made it work).
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: Covering DT build in -next merge
[not found] <ZS7rlTZLr0m1OEv8@sirena.org.uk>
2023-10-17 20:20 ` Covering DT build in -next merge Palmer Dabbelt
@ 2023-10-18 6:11 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2023-10-18 6:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown; +Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, soc
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1200 bytes --]
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 21:16:21 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel•org> wrote:
>
> 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.
Ummm, arm builds (and many others) select CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE (in
the case of arm, only if CONFIG_OF is set), and the top level Makefile
does this:
ifneq ($(wildcard $(srctree)/arch/$(SRCARCH)/boot/dts/),)
dtstree := arch/$(SRCARCH)/boot/dts
endif
ifneq ($(dtstree),)
.
.
.
ifdef CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE
all: dtbs
endif
endif
So won't this be the same as doing a separate "make dtbs"?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread