Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:03:52AM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote: > On Monday, 31 July 2023 04:28:31 CEST MOESSBAUER, Felix wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 18:52:07 +0100 Nicolas Frattaroli > > <frattaroli.nico...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I realise this is quite an old bug, but it would still be of interest > > > to me to get this enabled. The -@ option will increase the size of > > > the compiled device tree blobs somewhat, but on the flipside, > > > u-boot-menu's device tree overlay functionality will actually be useful. > > > > The increase is around 30% in average. For the linux-image-6.1.0-10- > > arm64, we have around 30MB of dtb files (uncompressed). By that, the > > package would grow by 10MB (uncompressed) or even less when compressed. > > I'm not a kernel maintainer, but I wouldn't expect it to be applied to > Debian's Stable kernel, ie the 6.1 series. > > > On many (if not most) arm based boards, these device tree overlays are > > very useful. There are also many kernel patches about enabling the > > symbol support on a per-device basis. However, kernel devs seem to have > > some mixed feelings about that. A proposed solution is to enable this > > at distro level [1]. > > @Ben: Would it be an accepted solution to enable the DTC_FLAGS += -@ > > for all armhf, armmp, arm64 and riscv devices? > > AFAIUI, the upstream kernel devs were against such a blanket enablement. > (Consequently it sounds like a bad idea if Debian would do it) > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220328000915.15041-1-ansuels...@gmail.com/ was > a > renewed attempt at restructuring the various .dts* into vendor directories > and > with 6.5 that got merged into the upstream kernel. > And (AFAIUI) that was seen as a prerequisite to start enabling the "-@" flag > on > a vendor/directory level, with optionally a subselection if it didn't make > sense to enable it for all boards ... pretty much (exactly) as you proposed. > > Doing it at the distro level was rejected (at least for Debian) with the > argument that it should be done upstream. > As there is some (?) coordination/synchronization wrt DeviceTrees between the > upstream kernel and u-boot, that also seems required for the functionality > quoted at the top of this email. > > You mentioned you proposed it for RISC-V boards and some DDs proposed it for > RPi boards and both got accepted. I think/expected that we would see (many?) > more such patches getting accepted going forward now that the above mentioned > dts directory restructuring has taken place. > > IOW: I agree with the reasoning you brought up in your patch submission > thread > and keep targeting inclusion in the upstream kernel.
Was there progress here, or what should we further do? If it's not something which is going to land upstream then I would suggest that we close the bug. Regards, Salvatore
