> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:55:48 +0300
> From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org>
>
> > > > > > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE)) {
> > > > > > - if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr)
> > > > > > - return (ulong *)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr;
> > > > > > - else
> > > > > > - return (ulong *)&_end;
> > > > > > - }
> > > > > > + if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr)
> > > > > > + return (void *)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr;
> > > > > > + else
> > > > > > + return (void *)&_end;
> > > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering if we need to check CONFIG_OF_BOARD here? I'm not sure
> > > > > whether we should distinguish the value of a1 register which is
> > > > > meaningless. It means that if we don't expect the device tree to be
> > > > > passed by prior stage, then the a1 register might be a trash value at
> > > > > the beginning, so it would still return the arch.firmware_fdt_addr
> > > > > here, rather than _end.
> > > >
> > > > I thought about it as well. Those boards were configured up to now with
> > > > 'CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE'. Which means we are looking at an existing issue?
> > > > IOW the device tree was passed as part of U-Boot, which would mean a1
> > > > would
> > > > have had thrash as well. Maybe a1 always has a valid DT on those boards
> > > > so we never noticed?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > And do you think that we should enable the
> > > > > CONFIG_OF_BOARD for unmatched and unleashed? Because it seems to me
> > > > > that we actually pass the device tree by prior stage (i.e. OpenSBI).
> > > >
> > > > Yes in that case what you request makes sense for unmatched/unleashed.
> > > > Return gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr in OF_BOARD is selected otherwise
> > > > return
> > > > _end (instead of the current check).
> > > > If that sounds good to you I'll send a v2
> > >
> > > Looking a bit more at it...
> > > Apparently those boards boot from SPL. So it's SPL->OpenSBI->U-Boot.
> > > By having the config as OF_SEPARATE the *U-Boot* DTB is used. SPL passes
> > > it to
> > > OpenSBI and OpenSBI passes it on a1 to U-Boot proper. That's why the
> > > register
> > > reading works for that config.
> > >
> > > In that case the pre-existing code is 'wrong' as well, since the DTB is
> > > not at _end, but the bogus path is never taken...
> > > (check the __weak board_fdt_blob_setup for details).
> > >
> >
> > If I remember correctly, the SPL would calculate the size of u-boot
> > proper, and then put the DTB at the end of u-boot proper, so the DTB
> > would fortuitously be put at the _end location.
>
> I haven't yet seen the creation part, but looking into the default
> board_fdt_blob_setup() the location seems to vary depending on
> CONFIG_SPL_BUILD. If that's selected (which is the case for those boards),
> then it depends on yet another SPL config for a separate .bsdd section.
>
> I don't have a board to verify my suspicion but I think reading the DTB
> without looking into a1 is broken for these boards.
>
> >
> > > So I think I'll send a v2, keeping the config as-is and fixing the return
> > > address of the DTB in case OF_BOARD is ever selected.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it seems to me that we could use a config to separate the case
> > between the prior stage and the _end.
>
> Untangling OF_SEPARATE and OF_BOARD is part of a bigger revamp I wanted to
> do on the handover of a device tree from previous bootloaders, since we do
> have similar 'problems' in Arm and TF-A. But in principle OF_SEPARATE
> shouldn't have per board code to overwrite it. OF_BOARD should be used for
> that. OF_SEPARATE should merely mean "The dtb is concatenated to my U-Boot
> binary.
>
> Right now RISC-V uses OF_SEPARATE reads the DTB on SPL and then goes back
> to using the a1 register for U-Boot proper. We could instead read the
> U-Boot concatenated DTB always in that case. OF_BOARD would then be used in
> case OpenSBI is compiled with a *different* DTB and you'd want to use that.
> Any idea if OpenSBI performs fixups before handing over the dtb in a1?
It does. One of the things it does is add a reserved memory entry for
itself.
> Unfortunately I don't have a board to test apart from QEMU. Let me respin
> this, with a potential fix I have in mind and we can discuss further.
>
> > Just note that, there is a patch
> > on the fly, it modifies the same snippet of code, you might need to
> > update your code based on top of it.
> > https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2021-September/460378.html
>
> I'll reply to that and see if the _end is indeed a problem.
>
> Thanks
> /Ilias
>
