ACK: [PATCH] devicetree/dt_base: Add base device-tree validity checks

[Jeremy Kerr]

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the Ack.

> Seeing that we are using dtc here, we need a follow up patch that will
> add dtc into the dependencies for the Debian packaging.  Do you mind
> adding that too as another patch?

Sure, can do, and I can look at the optional libfdt dependency at the 
same time. However, there are a few options here:

1) Build-Depends: libfdt-dev
    Depends: device-tree-compiler

    - Require libfdt for all builds, and dtc for all installations. This
      would be the most intrusive option, and causes an unnecessary
      installation of dtc & libfdt0 on x86 machines where it wouldn't be
      used.

2) Build-depends: libfdt-dev
    Depends: device-tree-compiler [ppc64el,powerpc]

    - Require libfdt for build, but dtc only on platforms where we'd
      expect to parse device trees. Would introduce a shlib-depends on
      libfdt0 though, for all arches.

3) Build-depends: libfdt-dev [ppc64el,powerpc]
    Depends: device-tree-compiler [ppc64el,powerpc]

    - Require libfdt & dtc only for powerpc builds

Options (1) and (2) also give us the option of making libfdt a 
manadatory build-time dependency, which means we could remove some of 
the conditional compilation rules, to make Makefiles & tests a little 
simpler. However, I'm not sure if the maintainers would be happy to make 
configure fail if its not present.

Option (3) is the least intrusive for x86, as it doesn't introduce any 
build or runtime dependencies.

I think I'd prefer the second - it means that device tree tests can be 
run on other arches (eg ARM), without a rebuild, just by installing dtc, 
and means that we don't install dtc on x86 (but we would install 
libfdt0). Also, it means we have less build-time variation between 
platforms, so we'd catch breakages in the fdt code sooner.

Let me know what you'd prefer.

Cheers,


Jeremy