On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 07:59:59AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On 10/15/24 14:48, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 at 07:03, Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/9/24 23:14, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Michal, > > > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 at 07:21, Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On 10/9/24 03:55, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Michal, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 07:05, Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adding binman node with target images description can be unwanted > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > but as of today there is no way to disable it. > > > > > > > Also on size constrained systems it is not useful to add binman > > > > > > > description > > > > > > > to DTB. > > > > > > > Introduce BINMAN_EXTERNAL_DTB Kconfig symbol which allows > > > > > > > separate DTB for > > > > > > > target from DTB for binman itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makefile | 2 +- > > > > > > > lib/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't this defeat one of the purposes of Binman, i.e. to document > > > > > > images? We do want the .dts to include the image description. What > > > > > > sort of problem is this causing? > > > > > > > > > > We have two boot flows. > > > > > The first one (default one) is using Xilinx FSBL for SOM > > > > > initialization with fit > > > > > image (DTBS) + u-boot.elf + tfa. > > > > > > > > > > The second one is using U-Boot SPL instead of FSBL. This flow is used > > > > > by > > > > > buildroot for example. > > > > > > > > > > In perfect world I should describe both of these flows. I sent > > > > > description for > > > > > the second as RFC here. > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/de1b8dbabd5ab7f20d7aac217ec4f5074d39f1da.1728462767.git.michal.si...@amd.com > > > > > > > > OK I'll take a look. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is also reasonable to describe the first flow but I really > > > > > don't want > > > > > both descriptions ends up in the target image. > > > > > > > > Why not? Knowing what is in the firmware is one of the goals of Binman. > > > > > > If this is single binary composition with clear layout then likely fine. > > > In our case where we target evaluation boards which can boot out of > > > different > > > boot devices it will be more confusing. > > > For these I want to generated all images also for testing purpose not only > > > images which you will burn to qspi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The second part is if you look at RFC and how fit-dtb.blob is > > > > > composed. It is > > > > > one DTB + DTBS which are composed from overlays. > > > > > > > > > > xilinx_zynqmp_kria_defconfig has > > > > > CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE="zynqmp-smk-k26-revA" > > > > > > > > > > That's why binman node should go to this DTB but because other images > > > > > are > > > > > composed with overlays binman node is spread to all DTBs inside FIT > > > > > image. > > > > > > > > > > It means one binman description is in fit-dtb.blob 14 times which is > > > > > far from > > > > > ideal. > > > > > > > > Yes, but I think what you are saying is that U-Boot doesn't need the > > > > description, so you don't need it to appear in the dtbs in the FIT. Is > > > > that right? > > > > > > Yes. > > > I know that there is a code around it but as of now I don't want to use > > > any of > > > this feature. > > > > > > > If so, then I think we should add a way to remove it, in Binman, > > > > perhaps with a property in the top-level binman image. > > > > > > Works for me but keep in your mind that for SOM this should be removed > > > from all > > > combinations and for me it is easier not to add that description there > > > instead > > > of adding it and removing it. > > > > OK, I think you are saying that the description is repeated in each > > .dtb since each is built by U-Boot's build system and then they are > > added to the FIT. > > yep > > > > > But what is to stop people from not bothering to fill in the binman > > description in U-Boot? I worry that vendors will have instructions > > like 'build U-Boot with the in-tree devicetree, which has no binman > > node, but pass this option to use this other file (not in mainline, > > just our special vendor branch), just for Binman's use', > > > > Where do you plan to keep this other file? > > In u-boot repo of course. And all configurations which makes sense. > And pretty much if vendors wants to hide it they can no matter of this patch. > I understand your concern but vendors can do it today.
Will resolving this let us finally remove SPL_FIT_GENERATOR as well? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature