Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-30348-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240112200750.4062441-1-sboyd@kernel.org> <20240112200750.4062441-2-sboyd@kernel.org>
 <ZaZtbU9hre3YhZam@FVFF77S0Q05N> <434b21afe1899b1567f3617261594842.sboyd@kernel.org>
 <ZalDM90KoQ2Il0j7@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZalDM90KoQ2Il0j7@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 17:23:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXkwDA4WAe5qYujeP0sF+h-950GZNkg+6kERr6SSmfz6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] arm64: Unconditionally call unflatten_device_tree()
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, 
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, 
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Mark,

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:27=E2=80=AFPM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>=
 wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 05:27:18PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Mark Rutland (2024-01-16 03:51:14)
> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:07:44PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > Call this function unconditionally so that we can populate an empty=
 DTB
> > > > on platforms that don't boot with a firmware provided or builtin DT=
B.
> > > > There's no harm in calling unflatten_device_tree() unconditionally.
> > >
> > > For better or worse, that's not true: there are systems the provide b=
oth a DTB
> > > *and* ACPI tables, and we must not consume both at the same time as t=
hose can
> > > clash and cause all sorts of problems. In addition, we don't want peo=
ple being
> > > "clever" and describing disparate portions of their system in ACPI an=
d DT.
> > >
> > > It is a very deliberate choice to not unflatten the DTB when ACPI is =
in use,
> > > and I don't think we want to reopen this can of worms.
> >
> > Hmm ok. I missed this part. Can we knock out the initial_boot_params in
> > this case so that we don't unflatten a DTB when ACPI is in use?
>
> Why is that better than just not calling unflatten_device_tree(), as we d=
o
> today?
>
> The cover letter says this is all so that we can run DT tests for the clk
> framework; why can't that just depend on the system being booted with DT =
rather
> than ACPI? We have other tests which are architecture and/or configuratio=
n
> dependent...

There is definitely a merit in running (platform-independent) DT tests
on any platform, whether the platform actually uses DT to boot or not.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--=20
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k=
org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. Bu=
t
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like t=
hat.
                                -- Linus Torvalds