Hi Anshul, On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 at 05:34, Anshul Dalal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri Jul 10, 2026 at 12:44 AM IST, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Anshul, > > > > On 2026-07-07T10:44:09, Anshul Dalal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> tools: binman: fix changes not being written to source.dtb > >> > >> In the current setup the changes done to the dtb by binman such as > >> bootph propagation are only made to the intermediary *.dtb.out but not > >> the final dtb. > >> > >> This means the final dtb that's in *-binman.dtsi never gets the required > >> changes applied. Therefore this patch fixes the behaviour by writing to > >> the supplied dtb before exiting with a modified test to catch any future > >> regressions. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Anshul Dalal <[email protected]> > >> > >> tools/binman/control.py | 3 +++ > >> tools/binman/ftest.py | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > >> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > > > Please can you spell out the concrete symptom? What breaks in a real > > build when u-boot.dtb doesn't carry the bootph propagation - which > > stage reads it, what does it expect to find, and what goes wrong when > > it isn't there? The *-binman.dtsi reference is confusing since a .dtsi > > is a source file, not something written to. > > The actual issue was observed while we were adding support for our a new > platform 'AM62l EVM' to U-Boot where the missing bootph properties meant > that the parent drivers were not being probed leading to boot failure. > > > > > Also please rewrite in imperative present tense: 'Write the modified > > dtb back to dtb_fname so that ...' rather than 'this patch fixes the > > behaviour by ...' > > Yeah, the former is more clear. Will fix in the next revision. > > > > >> diff --git a/tools/binman/control.py b/tools/binman/control.py > >> @@ -677,6 +677,9 @@ def PrepareImagesAndDtbs(dtb_fname, select_images, > >> update_fdt, use_expanded, ind > >> dtb_item.Sync(auto_resize=True) > >> dtb_item.Pack() > >> dtb_item.Flush() > >> + > >> + # Copy the intermediary dtb ('u-boot.dtb.out') to the dtb supplied to > >> binman > >> + tools.write_file(dtb_fname, dtb.GetContents()) > > > > This is updating an input file...really not keen on that! The updated > > dtb should already be written into the final image created by Binman. > > Perhaps it's an issue with how we're using 'u-boot.dtb'. As I see now, a > lot of platforms (including TI's) are using 'u-boot.dtb' as the fdt for > U-Boot FIT. Do we not expect the final U-Boot FIT produced in those > builds to have this propagation logic applied? > > To test things out, I built the am62x_evm_a53 platform and the fdt > extracted out of the built u-boot.img lacks proper bootph propagation > without this patch applied: > > fdtget -t r build/u-boot.img_unsigned /images/fdt-0/ data > > extracted.dtb > > It makes sense to not modify the input files so then should we change > the DTB we use in the u-boot's FIT to 'u-boot.dtb.out' instead of > 'u-boot.dtb'?
Possibly, but are you using Binman to create the FIT? If so it should use the updated FDT. This might be a hole in how Binman works? Regards, Simon
