Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:     Re: Covering DT build in -next merge
In-Reply-To: <ZS7rlTZLr0m1OEv8@sirena.org.uk>
CC:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        soc@kernel.org
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
To:     broonie@kernel.org, Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <mhng-9d3c8241-8749-4b5e-bb01-64cf5e2d0bb8@palmer-ri-x1c9a>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:16:21 PDT (-0700), broonie@kernel.org wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> I was wondering if it might be possible to add DTB builds for relevant
> architecutres to the -next merge checks (everything except x86 AFAIK)?
> Some current experience suggested to me that it might be helpful for
> bisecting problems found in testing, breakage building the DTBs causes
> hassle since where they're used in tree DTs are required to boot the
> kernel.
>
> At least for arm and arm64 the DT build is quick enough to be negligable
> in the context of building the kernel itself so hopefully it shouldn't
> add too much load to do this - it's just adding a 'make dtbs' (with
> appropriate cross build options) to the kernel build.

Pretty sure we're in the same shape for RISC-V these days.  +Conor, who 
would know for sure (as he made it work).

>
> Thanks,
> Mark