From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:06:05 -0700
Subject: [RFC PATCH V2 2/2] kbuild: dtbs_install: new make target
In-Reply-To: <20131119203923.GF28859@titan.lakedaemon.net>
References: <20131118191955.GG10335@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <528A6944.3070303@wwwdotorg.org>
 <20131118192852.GI10335@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <528A6CA3.9030904@wwwdotorg.org>
 <20131118195243.GJ10335@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <528A98C8.9040803@wwwdotorg.org>
 <20131119122801.GL16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <528BB109.2060201@wwwdotorg.org>
 <20131119185729.GD28859@titan.lakedaemon.net> <528BC1A3.70202@wwwdotorg.org>
 <20131119203923.GF28859@titan.lakedaemon.net>
Message-ID: <528BD2BD.8090304@wwwdotorg.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 11/19/2013 01:39 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:53:07PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
...
>> d) Finally, boot.scr needs to load the DTB. This requires knowing which
>> DTB to load. Again, the distro shouldn't have to detect which board
>> they're running on, and either install the correct DTB to a static
>> filename, or make a decision on the DTB filename to load. Instead,
>> distros should simply install all DTBs generated by the kernel build,
>> and use some run-time information to calculate the DTB filename using a
>> completely HW-agnostic and generic algorithm.
>>
>> To support this, U-Boot can be configured to add certain standard
>> environment variables to the default environment. These define which SoC
>> and board the code is running on. These are ${soc} and ${board}. If you
>> then calculate the DTB filename as ${soc}-${board}.dtb, that should work
>> anywhere. This is why keeping the current in-kernel DTB filenames is
>> important, so they match the assumption that this algorithm works.
>>
>> Note: if the firmware contains an embedded DTB, boot.scr could detect
>> this e.g. by the standard variable $fdt_addr being set, and hence skiip
>> loading a DTB. IIRC, this is how Calxeda boards are set up.
> 
> Ok, so the ${soc}-${board} is a work-around until all bootloaders are
> providing a dtb, or until all bootloaders are providing a stable dtb?

I suppose so yes.

However, I'm not really convinced we'll see that many products with a DT
embedded into them that's stable, complete[1], and based on upstream
bindings, in the particularly near future. I think distros will likely
need to deal with DTs-in-filesystems for a while yet. But anyway, either
way should work out just fine.

[1] For example, we aren't that far off some reasonably stable basic
bindings for Tegra now . However, there are still devices we haven't
added to DT at all, so while the DT ABI stability issue is fading, the
need-to-upgrade-your-DTB case still exists to get new features, and
upgrading the DTB via the filesystem is a lot easier and more convenient
than doing so via firmware updates or firmware flashing commands.