On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:39:18AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 09:12, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 08:43:41AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 08:09, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 07:17:27PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 10:02, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 09:15:00AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Rasmus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Sept 2023 at 13:05, Rasmus Villemoes > > > > > > > <rasmus.villem...@prevas.dk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25/09/2023 20.19, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:27:43AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On 04/05/2023 14.35, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> On 03/05/2023 16.54, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The one last problem now is on stm32mp15_dhcor_basic which > > > > > > > > >>>> is a > > > > > > > > >>>> defconfig missing one from OF_LIST but including it in the > > > > > > > > >>>> its file, so > > > > > > > > >>>> the above is the patch we need. > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Tom > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Can I persuade you to try something like > > > > > > > > >> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/commit/a05e0d0e6b9103542a1076f9cab0005f400fa072 > > > > > > > > >> again, but leaving the .dtbo targets in there? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I could send a patch, but it's entirely mechanical, and not > > > > > > > > >> really meant > > > > > > > > >> for being applied until we know if there's more to be > > > > > > > > >> cleaned up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what ended up being the problem I think is the case Simon > > > > > > > > > pointed out > > > > > > > > > where we do take the output from "make all" and concatenate > > > > > > > > > one of the > > > > > > > > > dtbs that was generated with u-boot.img or so, and it works. > > > > > > > > > But maybe > > > > > > > > > that should just list all of the valid DTBs that it needs in > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > defconfig to start with? I don't quite know, it was a case I > > > > > > > > > hadn't > > > > > > > > > considered at the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re-reading the thread, I can't see where that was mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But yes, if some boards (still) need that, and have more than > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > possible .dtb, the board can't set an OF_LIST different from > > > > > > > > the default > > > > > > > > consisting of DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE because changing OF_LIST > > > > > > > > requires > > > > > > > > SPL_LOAD_FIT || MULTI_DTB_FIT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do we figure out if such boards even exist? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Honestly at this point I've forgotten what this is all about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps the easiest approach is to create a new Kconfig to control > > > > > > > whether a board-level .dtsi is included in the list of wildcard > > > > > > > searches. Then you can enable it for your board without affecting > > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's getting things backwards, from what this cleanup does. > > > > > > Today we > > > > > > have messy lists of "build these device trees" and then don't use > > > > > > most > > > > > > of them, and some of the list is just Wrong (listing dts files as an > > > > > > output). With the series to handle dtbo files, we could remove > > > > > > virtually all of that, and the only use cases that don't Just Work > > > > > > still > > > > > > are the ones I forget which board you mentioned (I think it was > > > > > > Samsung > > > > > > tho?) where the defconfig doesn't list all of the device trees, > > > > > > just one > > > > > > of them, and the other 5 that we build can also be easily used. > > > > > > Does > > > > > > that ring a bell? > > > > > > > > > > Yes it does...but what is the problem here? > > > > > > > > Messy and unused and incorrect Makefile content. > > > > > > The problem I see there is people using TARGET in > > > arch/arm/dts/Makefile for example. There are 80 instances of that. The > > > rules should depend on SoC (e.g. use ARCH_EXYNOS5), as Linux does it. > > > > It shouldn't be there at all since there's almost no cases where we > > "just" take an arbitrary dtb file and u-boot.img and then the system > > boot. That's what this series is about fixing. > > I'm really not sure that replacing build rules with a board CONFIG is > a good idea. I suppose part of my confusion is why the Makefile is > considered a problem?
Because it's duplicative and as Rasmus points out, often wrong. > > > > > The DT files for an SoC are supposed to be buildable without needing > > > > > to have the context of a particular board. > > > > > > > > They're still buildable, without an explicit rule, they just need to > > > > (like they can now) be built explicitly. > > > > > > But isn't that creating dead code? It will rot. > > > > No, that's the problem we have today, people list something in the > > Makefile, since they think they need to list something, and then put the > > device trees they use in the defconfig. > > If they don't list something, it won't build, right? No, everyone builds fine since CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE is pretty much always set. And for run time, if we need more, *OF_LIST gets set. > > [snip] > > > > > I am find with making the boards list the DTs that they can run with, > > > > > if there is an easy way of doing that. CONFIG_SPL_OF_LIST is just for > > > > > SPL, I think. > > > > > > > > Yes, every board except for some use case you've described before as far > > > > as I know lists the device trees that they use in the defconfig. Which > > > > is why there's an impetus to clean up arch/*/dts/Makefile as 95% of > > > > those lines can just be removed. > > > > > > It seems like you are wanting a board-level CONFIG which lists the DTs > > > which need to be built for that board. Is that right? You are > > > suggesting that this already exists, but I am not aware of it. Do you > > > mean SPL_OF_LIST, perhaps? > > > > I mean today CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE + CONFIG_OF_LIST + > > CONFIG_SPL_OF_LIST is set and correct for everyone board except some use > > case you have, which I think is something about exynos? And so we only > > need scripts/Makefile.dts in arch/*/dts/Makefile > > Yes exynos5 boards (the original reason for DT) have / had the same > u-boot-nodtb.bin and you can add the DT you want to boot it on > particular hardware. That is one of the goals of DT. Yes, but "and you concat the two files" isn't common. We _can_ keep the EXYNOS list, if that's actually being used. But most of that list is not, as far as I can tell, because the flow is "U-Boot binarie(s) + DTB files + stuff" to get the correctly formatted blob for the firmware. > The OF_LIST option is a little vague but I think it means that the DTs > are packaged into a FIT in u-boot.img - is that right? But they > presumably have to be built first. No, they don't have to be built first because scripts/Makefile.dts ensures that we build everything in *OF_LIST. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
