On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 6:54 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 10:37, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:20 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 03:07, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Provide a way for removing certain devicetree nodes and/or properties > > > > from the devicetree. This is needed to purge certain nodes and > > > > properties which may be relevant only in U-Boot. Such nodes and > > > > properties are then removed from the devicetree before it is passed to > > > > the kernel. This ensures that the devicetree passed to the OS does not > > > > contain any non-compliant nodes and properties. > > > > > > > > The removal of the nodes and properties is being done through an > > > > EVT_FT_FIXUP handler. I am not sure if the removal code needs to be > > > > behind any Kconfig symbol. > > > > > > > > I have only build tested this on sandbox, and tested on qemu arm64 > > > > virt platform. This being a RFC, I have not put this through a CI run. > > > > > > > > Sughosh Ganu (5): > > > > dt: Provide a way to remove non-compliant nodes and properties > > > > fwu: Add the fwu-mdata node for removal from devicetree > > > > capsule: Add the capsule-key property for removal from devicetree > > > > bootefi: Call the EVT_FT_FIXUP event handler > > > > doc: Add a document for non-compliant DT node/property removal > > > > > > > > cmd/bootefi.c | 18 +++++ > > > > .../devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst | 64 ++++++++++++++++ > > > > drivers/fwu-mdata/fwu-mdata-uclass.c | 5 ++ > > > > include/dt-structs.h | 11 +++ > > > > lib/Makefile | 1 + > > > > lib/dt_purge.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c | 7 ++ > > > > 7 files changed, 179 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 doc/develop/devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst > > > > create mode 100644 lib/dt_purge.c > > > > > > What is the point of removing them? Instead, we should make sure that > > > we upstream the bindings and encourage SoC vendors to sync them. If we > > > remove them, no one will bother and U-Boot just becomes a dumping > > > ground. > > > > Well things like the binman entries in DT are U-Boot specific and not > > useful for HW related descriptions or for Linux or another OS being > > able to deal with HW so arguably we're already a dumping ground to > > some degree for not defining hardware. > > I have started the process to upstream the binman bindings.
I don't think they should be in DT at all, they don't describe anything to do with hardware, or generally even the runtime of a device, they don't even describe the boot/runtime state of the firmware, they describe build time, so I don't see what that has to do with device tree? Can you explain that? To me those sorts of things should live in a build time style config file. > Perhaps we should use the issue tracker[1] to follow progress on all > of this. We need to clean it up. > > > > > > Instead of this, how about working on bringing the DT validation into > > > U-Boot so we can see what state things are in? > > > > > > Please send the bindings for Linaro's recent series (which I suspect > > > are motivating this series) so we can start the process. > > Regards, > Simon > > [1] https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/issues
