On Friday 30 December 2022 11:43:44 Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Pali, > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 10:06, Pali Rohár <p...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Friday 30 December 2022 09:49:08 Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Pali, > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 09:44, Pali Rohár <p...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday 30 December 2022 10:41:47 Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 04:24:43PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > > On Friday 30 December 2022 10:21:04 Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > In this case it would be better to build u-boot-dts.bin only by > > > > > > > > binman > > > > > > > > (for all platforms) instead of cat-ing rules in Makefile. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would also be an easier path forward perhaps for making sure > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > the dtb is always 8 byte aligned? > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, no. With DTB the problem is that it is not put to the correct > > > > > > offset as can be specified in linker script. So moving this code > > > > > > from > > > > > > Makefile to binman also moves this problem to another location. > > > > > > 8 byte alignment is just subset of the "correct offset" problem. > > > > > > > > > > Right, the high level answer is binman is intended to be the tool to > > > > > assemble binaries, and has to deal with "make sure binary X is at > > > > > offset > > > > > Y, which also has a linker symbol for run-time references". > > > > > > > > Ok, if this tool has access to ELF/linker symbols (or will have in > > > > future in case it does not have yet) then this problem could be solved > > > > here. > > > > > > It does have this access and already updates symbols in some cases. > > > See [1]. > > > [1] > > > https://u-boot.readthedocs.io/en/latest/develop/package/binman.html#access-to-binman-entry-offsets-at-run-time-symbols > > > > I just do not see how to do it, but ok, maybe something more is needed. > > > > > I am a little nervous about a complete move to binman in this > > > area even for simple things like u-boot.bin, since it would set off > > > yet another migration. > > > > Yes, it sounds like a big change. > > > > > But perhaps most boards don't actually use u-boot.bin anyway? > > > > I think that most boards _use_ u-boot.bin. Or wrap u-boot.bin into some > > own container (by mkimage). > > > > > Part of me thinks we should solve this in the .lds files, since > > > otherwise we are blurring the line between building and packaging. > > > > Linker script files in any case would have to be adjusted / fixed to > > align _end symbol. Without it ELF symbol would not be correct and so > > obviously any solution depending on ELF symbols would not work... > > > > As I wrote recently, I proposed alternative solution without binman: > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20221217235913.w7ihsktbplbp2j7z@pali/ > > I think that would work. It is a little like the BINARY_SIZE_CHECK > thing we have. It is the closest thing to what we have. As you saw I > was happy with your original 'trunc' solution too. > > After some more thought, perhaps the binman solution makes sense, so > long as we do what you say above (make the _end symbol aligned). Of > course binman can fix that up, but it feels more like a build thing > than a packaging thing to me.
Yes, this is build thing/issue, not packaging one. > It could be quite confusing for people > to see a symbol change between build-time and run-time. Yes, symbol change is confusing. So I would propose to not change any symbol between build and run time. > So the steps would be something like this: > > 1. Update the align before _end in each .lds to use a constant like > #define END_ALIGN 8 > 2. Update binman's dtb etypes to align to 8 bytes This is not enough. Some boards/platform may have stricter alignment (e.g. to SD card sector size = 512 bytes). So binman should not align image and instead of that, it should read _exact_ address of _end symbol and put DTB etype to this address. Step 1. already ensures that _end is aligned to 8 bytes. > 3. Add a common binman image for u-boot.bin (used by every board) It should be u-boot-dtb.bin (not u-boot.bin). At least this is the current file name. (See this my patch series again, which aligns this naming also for powerpc/mpc85xx). > 4. Enable binman by default > 5. Drop the current 'cat' rules in Makefile, so that only u-boot and > u-boot-nodtb.bin are produced (cat rule is only for u-boot-dtb.bin) > 6. Optionally consider moving .img files to binman also > > Regards, > Simon With slightly modified/improved step 2. I agree that this improves current situation. And should these issues.
