[yocto] [denzil-next BREAKAGE] Silent breakage in denzil-next --- uImage*.dts no longer generated

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Scott Garman <scott.a.garman at intel.com> wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 07:50 AM, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
>>
>> Hello Scott, all,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Leon Woestenberg
>> <sidebranch.openembedded at gmail.com
>> <mailto:sidebranch.openembedded at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello Scott,
>>
>>     I tested your denzil-next branch but found breakage that will not
>>     fail the (auto) build.
>>
>>     I'm hitting the "Warning: ${DTS_FILE} is not available!" case.
>>
>> Disregard the breakage.  Local user error; my KERNEL_DEVICETREE missed
>> the "${S}" prefix.
>>
>> However, that being said, should we silently fail with a warning of the
>> specified device tree (DTS) is missing?  This is clearly a change of
>> behaviour that makes the build prone to user errors, as I just
>> demonstrated.
>>
>> I rather have the build fail.
>
>
> Hi Leon,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. I believe Matthew made the original request for
> this commit (linux-dtb: add multi-dtb build support,
> a40d795ee97d8ada6a0b76c9741a8653fd646893). I'm cc:'ing him on this email as
> well as Richard Purdie, who has yet to review the new commits in my
> denzil-next branch and may also have some input on this issue.
>
> The question in my mind right now is whether this change is too
> risky/change-inducing for a point-release.

I think the was made this way for people using different Linux tree's
(and Linux versions) specifically which lacked specific device trees
so switching between them causing problems for specific device tree
definitions so with this we could just list them all. For example
p1022ds -> (p1022ds_32b and p1022ds_36b). I could be convinced the
make this an error or at the very least a bb.warn instead of just an
echo since it does seem problematic.

Any change should go through master -> denzil

-M