On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 11:45:05AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On Fri, May 02 2025, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 01:34:33PM +0200, Bruno Leite wrote:
> >
> >> From: Bruno Leite <br...@prevas.dk>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Currently rpi5 uses a generic rpi_arm64_defconfig file that builds rpi4
> >> devicetree. Add a defconfig that is specific to the rpi5 building the
> >> now available upstream dts for that board. The defconfig makes use of
> >> defconfig including that is now available and only changes the DTS
> >> related config.
> >> 
> >> It is also necessary to add a more specific u-boot.dtsi to rpi5, since
> >> due to the ARCH_BCM283X config it will try to build the
> >> bcm283x-u-boot.dtsi and break.
> >
> > My question is, can we not adjust rpi_arm64_defconfig to be generic
> > enough and not have a problem on Pi 5 due to the default device tree?
> 
> Not really.
> 
> What we want is to have CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE to point at the
> rpi5's .dts file, because we really want to build that and not some
> "random" dts file that doesn't have anything to do with the hardware. I
> know that kinda works for the setups where the .dtb built in U-Boot is
> not used for anything, but in our case, we really do want to use the
> .dtb from the U-Boot build - we inject various U-Boot specific stuff via
> the EXTRA_DTSI mechanism, e.g. public key for kernel verification.
> 
> And due to CONFIG_SYS_SOC being bcm283x, and bcm283x-u-boot.dtsi
> referencing nodes that simply don't exist when building
> bcm2712-rpi-5-b.dts, the build breaks.
> 
> Perhaps the real problem is CONFIG_SYS_SOC being bcm283x for rpi5? I
> don't really know why rpi4 is both bcm2711 and bcm2835 and what the
> difference is, but rpi5 only seems to include a bcm2712.dtsi which does
> not include further dtsi files.
> 
> If rpi5 has nothing to do with bcm283x, then perhaps a better approach
> is to ensure that CONFIG_SYS_SOC is bcm2712 when building for
> rpi5. Something like adding a CONFIG_TARGET_RPI_5 choice and adding a
> 'default "bcm2712" if TARGET_RPI_5' ?

OK, so I guess my next question is, is rpi_arm64 useful enough in the
end for Pi 3 and Pi 4? I would have expected that it doesn't matter what
tree we build in to U-Boot as we would be using the one passed to us by
the prior stage firmware, and then update that at run-time as needed.

-- 
Tom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to