Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Add device tree build information
To:     Steve McIntyre <steve.mcintyre@linaro.org>
Cc:     Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        david@gibson.dropbear.id.au, sjg@chromium.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-compiler@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200113181625.3130-1-alexandre.torgue@st.com>
 <f21ad44d-f119-2035-b4ee-16b3619879af@gmail.com>
 <233e0a5f-d38f-908c-5ca7-66ee87d0fcae@st.com>
 <7cfd0bc0-13fd-98ea-9bfd-6cfbbfd77b6d@gmail.com>
 <220e3aea-b273-417a-69c9-059236c888af@st.com>
 <a1233cd8-e73a-82d7-74bf-69109d1a0a07@gmail.com>
 <20200120182837.GO3697@linaro.org>
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f09ce50c-6721-c9d3-4f27-3f98a2d0b183@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 21:20:55 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200120182837.GO3697@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 1/20/20 12:28 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hi Frank!
> 
> Thanks for the link back to the previous discussion, it's very
> helpful.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:14:22AM -0600, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 1/20/20 4:56 AM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> and the date). There are no "dtb versions", and "absolute/relative"
>>> path which created concerns. One remaining concern is "reproducible
>>
>> Here is an example of the info from one of my builds:
>>
>>   From Linux 5.5.0-rc2-dirty by frowand the Mon Jan 20 09:50:58 CST 2020.
>>
>> The information 'Linux 5.5.0-rc2-dirty' is precisely what was most objected
>> to in my proposal.
> 
> ACK. :-( I'm surprised to see so much push-back on what looks like a
> simple piece of information here.

Me too.


> 
> I've had users *specifically* asking for this kind of identification
> so that they can verify the version of the DTB they're using at
> runtime. Right now it can be a guessing game, which does not help
> people trying to debug problems.
> 
> Cheers,
> 

If the information was reported as debug information via pr_debug(),
would that work for your use case?  Or would the users' kernels
not have debug enabled in the configuration?

-Frank