Hi Tom, On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 08:10, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 09:00:25PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 at 17:53, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 at 11:22, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 01:57:45PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > For most boards, the device-tree compiler is built in-tree, ignoring > > > > > the > > > > > system version. Add a special option to skip this build. This can be > > > > > useful when the system dtc is up-to-date, as it speeds up the build. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v1) > > > > > > > > > > tools/buildman/builder.py | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > > tools/buildman/builderthread.py | 4 ++-- > > > > > tools/buildman/buildman.rst | 3 +++ > > > > > tools/buildman/cmdline.py | 2 ++ > > > > > tools/buildman/control.py | 3 ++- > > > > > tools/buildman/test.py | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > 6 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > We should probably do this more generically, outside of buildman. We > > > > have scripts/dtc-version.sh and if the system version isn't new enough > > > > (and we just need to define whatever the minimum version is), then we > > > > build our (not currently that new anymore) dtc instead. > > > > > > Yes I think I did a patch for that ages ago [1], but it was rejected. > > > > > > I'd be very happy for it to be applied as I think it is a better > > > solution than this one. > > > > > > I see that some poor sod tried to do this in Linux this morning. > > > > Any thoughts on that patch? > > I'm open to re-considering [1] again, but we need to handle the warning > problem first. That means... > > > Also I do see one problem. Newer dtc version produce a lot of > > warnings, which causes CI to fail. So if we always use the newest > > version, people are going to see a ton of warnings when they run > > locally. Am I missing something here? > > Well, it would be great to get our Kbuild logic anywhere close to > in-sync again with upstream. But syncing up the disabling warning flags > shouldn't be too hard.
Have you talked to Linaro about taking this on? It becomes more and more important as time goes on. Regards, Simon
