Re: integrating dtc into the sim/ tree

Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:30:12 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.gdb.devel
Message-ID	<1850909.FvmpfGFofc@vapier>

On Wed 20 Aug 2014 11:53:47 Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > so after talking to myself, i guess the issue isn't so much with using
> > the system copy of dtc as it is with making it a hard requirement
> > (which is different from how the other packages use 3rd party libs --
> > they're all optional).  might be able to reduce the requirement so
> > only the hw layers hard depend on it, but i'm not sure if even that is
> > possible.
> 
> OK. Is that dependency on dtc something new? Or was it there already
> for certain sims and not others?
> 
> Dependency requirements like these should be discussed on a
> case-per-case basis, I think. And the answers to the questions
> you ask above (can it be made optional, what functionality gets
> lost, etc) definitely influence the decision.

moxie is the only one that hard requires dtc (it might be limited to 
maintainer mode).  but the larger point is to delete a large body of custom 
code that the sim has today for parsing its device tree like data format and 
convert over to the standard format that the rest of the world is using now.  
and longer term, make it so we can share dtc files between linux/u-boot/qemu 
such that you can feed a fdt to the sim and it'll automatically bring up 
hardware in the same way as the kernel would have found it.

atm, you have to basically write two different device trees with different 
syntax and names, then feed one to the sim and the other to the kernel.  and 
hope they don't get out of sync :).

there's basically no chance of people rewriting the existing sim code so that 
it gains all the same functionality as the public dtc, and then keeping it in 
sync.  i'd rather just gut it and be done, and get the dtc updates for free.
-mike

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 819 B)