[coreboot] [PATCH] device tree de-duplication

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net
Tue Oct 6 23:20:06 CEST 2009

On 06.10.2009 22:56, Myles Watson wrote:
>> I don't recommend doing this but it's done.
> It's easily reverted.

I'm happy with the change.

>> But until we kill newconfig, with this change, we've locked sconfig
>> into supporting the newconfig tree grammar. If we fix or improve
>> things for devicetree.cb we stand a change of breaking builds based on
>> newconfig.
> My opinion is that we have too many things up in the air.  When Patrick is
> trying to figure out differences between Kconfig and newconfig, the last
> thing he needs is a devicetree.cb that has been modified from the Config.lb
> breaking things.

In German there is a proverb about having too many construction sites
at once. I'm happy that the CBFS conversion seems to be done, and the
ongoing Kconfig work is also awesome. Taking into account that new boards
are ported every few weeks, it becomes clear that a new devicetree.cb
syntax is not something to develop right now.

Besides that, the v3 dts stuff was (and still is) awesome, and considering
that qemu people have been working on dts as well for their device model
stuff, we should seriously consider not reinventing devicetree structure
and syntax again.

>> So, in future, if we change the new tree grammar for some reason, we
>> stand a chance of breaking abuild.
> I thought the idea was to switch over to kbuildall before we made other
> major changes.  Otherwise we have too many things to test.  For example the
> s2881 that used to work.

Yes, can we please at least try to keep those boards working (or restore
them to working state) which we can test? Moving infrastructure too fast
and breaking boards contributed to the waning interest in v3.

>> If we're going to do something like this change I'd prefer just
>> removing Config.lb and Options.lb.
> That seems one step more drastic than what I did.

Once Kconfig works for all boards and kbuildall works for all boards,
why not? But before that... I am very afraid of repeating procedures
which may have had bad impact on v3.



More information about the coreboot mailing list