Hi Bin, On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 10:07, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 12:48 AM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 08:55, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 11:47 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > > > > > On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 08:15, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > For scenarios like OF_PRIOR_STAGE, no device tree blob is provided > > > > > in the U-Boot build phase hence the binman node information is not > > > > > available. In order to support such use case, a new Kconfig option > > > > > BINMAN_DTB is introduced, to tell U-Boot build system that a device > > > > > tree blob is explicitly required when using binman to package U-Boot. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > - new patch: "binman: Support packaging U-Boot for scenarios like > > > > > OF_PRIOR_STAGE" > > > > > > > > > > Makefile | 3 ++- > > > > > dts/Kconfig | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > lib/Kconfig | 2 +- > > > > > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > > > > > index 3d88559b67..9043828675 100644 > > > > > --- a/Makefile > > > > > +++ b/Makefile > > > > > @@ -918,6 +918,7 @@ endif > > > > > endif > > > > > INPUTS-$(CONFIG_TPL) += tpl/u-boot-tpl.bin > > > > > INPUTS-$(CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE) += u-boot.dtb > > > > > +INPUTS-$(CONFIG_BINMAN_DTB) += u-boot.dtb > > > > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK),y) > > > > > INPUTS-$(CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE) += u-boot-dtb.img > > > > > endif > > > > > @@ -1161,7 +1162,7 @@ u-boot-dtb.bin: u-boot-nodtb.bin dts/dt.dtb > > > > > FORCE > > > > > u-boot.bin: u-boot-dtb.bin FORCE > > > > > $(call if_changed,copy) > > > > > else > > > > > -u-boot.bin: u-boot-nodtb.bin FORCE > > > > > +u-boot.bin: u-boot-nodtb.bin $(if $(CONFIG_BINMAN_DTB),dts/dt.dtb) > > > > > FORCE > > > > What is this change for, specifically? Can you add a comment? > > > > It seems to be overriding the qemu thing of not actually building a DT? > > > > > > > $(call if_changed,copy) > > > > > endif > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/dts/Kconfig b/dts/Kconfig > > > > > index 99ce75e1a2..84d43fc6a4 100644 > > > > > --- a/dts/Kconfig > > > > > +++ b/dts/Kconfig > > > > > @@ -19,6 +19,24 @@ config BINMAN > > > > > bool > > > > > select DTOC > > > > > > > > > > +config BINMAN_DTB > > > > > + bool > > > > > + depends on BINMAN > > > > > + default y if OF_PRIOR_STAGE > > > > > + help > > > > > + This option tells U-Boot build system that a device tree > > > > > blob is > > > > > + explicitly required when using binman to package U-Boot. > > > > > + > > > > > + This is not necessary in a common scenario where a device > > > > > tree blob > > > > > + is provided in the arch/<arch>/dts directory for a specific > > > > > board, > > > > > + where the binman node has been put in the board's device > > > > > tree, aka > > > > > + an implicit way. However for a scenario like the board's > > > > > device tree > > > > > + is not provided in the U-Boot source tree, but given to > > > > > U-Boot in the > > > > > + runtime, e.g.: in the OF_PRIOR_STAGE case that the device > > > > > tree blob > > > > > + is passed by a prior stage bootloader. For such scenario, > > > > > we will > > > > > + need to provide a device tree blob containing binman node > > > > > to describe > > > > > + how to package U-Boot. > > > > > > > > I don't fully understand the effect of this. Is binman (at build time) > > > > using a binary DT provided by another build system? Or is it not > > > > available at build time and binman cannot run? > > > > > > binman uses a DT provided by U-Boot, but that DT is only for binman if > > > OF_PRIOR_STAGE. For OF_SEPARATE / EMBEDDED, we can include binman node > > > there. > > > > > > You can check patch 10 for how it works. > > > > OK I think I get it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The name is too vanilla I think. It should indicate that this is an > > > > unusual situation. > > > > > > I cannot think of a good name :( > > > > How about BINMAN_FAKE_FDT ? > > Better than mine :) > > If FAKE confuses people, maybe BINMAN_STANDALONE_FDT, or BINMAN_PACKAGE_FDT ?
BINMAN_STANDALONE_FDT seems better actually > > > > > Why do you need to turn off BINMAN_FDT? > > Because binman_init() fails on locating the image node in the device > tree, where the binman node does not exist at all. The DT used only > exists in the U-Boot build phase. Oh yes I see. So confusing. Can you add some docs to binman about this? > > So here is what we have for different OF_CONTROL methods: > > OF_SEPARATE / OF_EMBEDED: binman node is available in the DT (exists OF_EMBED > along with other device nodes) > OF_PRIOR_STAGE: binman node is not available in the DT (DT only > contains the device nodes) OK yes. Regards, Simon
