On 2/23/25 02:33, E Shattow wrote:
On 2/21/25 01:58, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
The configuration descriptions generated by binman contain the vendor
device-tree directory. Instead of adding it to all match strings just strip
it off.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com>
Reviewed-by: Leo Yu-Chi Liang <ycli...@andestech.com>
---
v3:
no change
v2:
no change
---
board/starfive/visionfive2/spl.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board/starfive/visionfive2/spl.c b/board/starfive/visionfive2/spl.c
index 22afd76c6b9..d63eb1abe6a 100644
--- a/board/starfive/visionfive2/spl.c
+++ b/board/starfive/visionfive2/spl.c
@@ -118,6 +118,10 @@ int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name)
product_id = get_product_id_from_eeprom();
+ /* Strip off prefix */
+ if (strncmp(name, "starfive/", 9))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ name += 9;
if (!strncmp(product_id, "VF7110", 6)) {
version = get_pcb_revision_from_eeprom();
if ((version == 'b' || version == 'B') &&
Let's insist on logic statements in board_fit_config_name_match()
callback that begin with literal items (no pointer math trickery) from
configs/starfive_visionfive2_defconfig:CONFIG_OF_LIST and in that order:
Thank you for reviewing.
Unfortunately your sentence starting with "Let's insist" does not
provide insight into your reasoning.
Why do you want to add the 'starfive/' to each of the strings we compare
instead of checking the common prefix first and the remainder next which
results in a smaller binary?
#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(LOAD_FIT)
int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name)
{
if(!strcmp(name, "starfive/jh7110-milkv-mars") &&
!strncmp(get_product_id_from_eeprom(), "MARS", 4)) {
return 0;
} else if((!strcmp(name, "starfive/jh7110-pine64-star64")) &&
!strncmp(get_product_id_from_eeprom(), "STAR64", 6)) {
return 0;
} else if((!strcmp(name, "starfive/jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2-v1.2a"))
&&
!strncmp(get_product_id_from_eeprom(), "VF7110", 6)) {
switch (get_pcb_revision_from_eeprom()) {
case 'a':
case 'A':
return 0;
}
} else if((!strcmp(name, "starfive/jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2-v1.2b"))
&&
!strncmp(get_product_id_from_eeprom(), "VF7110", 6)) {
switch (get_pcb_revision_from_eeprom()) {
case 'b':
case 'B':
return 0;
}
}
return -EINVAL;
}
#endif
Not sure about code style so that is simply an example of keeping the
sort order the same as how it exists in
configs/starfive_visionfive2_defconfig:CONFIG_OF_LIST
Mars CM (and CM Lite) logic may be dropped since those targets do not
exist at the moment in starfive_visionfive2_defconfig:CONFIG_OF_LIST
however, I do anticipate to submit for review into Linux upstream soon
and to begin that process. A donation board was sent to me so I now have
Mars CM to test as well as Mars CM Lite.
As you are planning to upstream the boards I suggest to keep those
lines. You could already use them by manually copying the device-trees
into the upstream dtb folder and adding the files to CONFIG_OF_LIST.
Are the duplicate string definitions and logic in
board/starfive/visionfive2/starfive_visionfive2.c:set_fdtfile() etc.
still appropriate, could those now be factored out? I think Simon's
suggestion (in reply on IRC) of CONFIG_FIT_BEST_MATCH could replace that
functionality? -E
$fdtfile is used for loading a device-tree from the ESP. I can't see how
CONFIG_FIT_BEST_MATCH which controls choosing FIT configurations is
related. We cannot set $fdtfile from SPL.
Best regards
Heinrich
