Hi Jan, On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 12:01, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: > > On 26.06.21 20:29, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 08:08, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 07:14:21PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote: > >>> Hi Tom, > >>> > >>> On 09/06/21 6:47 pm, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> On 07.06.21 13:44, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>>> On 07.06.21 13:40, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 03:33:52PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote: > >>>>>>> +Tom, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Tom, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 02/06/21 3:07 pm, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> To avoid the need of extra boot scripting on AM65x for loading a > >>>>>>>> watchdog firmware, add the required rproc init and loading logic for > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> first R5F core to the watchdog start handler. In case the R5F > >>>>>>>> cluster is > >>>>>>>> in lock-step mode, also initialize the second core. The firmware > >>>>>>>> itself > >>>>>>>> is embedded into U-Boot binary to ease access to it and ensure it is > >>>>>>>> properly hashed in case of secure boot. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> One possible firmware source is > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/siemens/k3-rti-wdt. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> drivers/watchdog/Kconfig | 20 ++++++++++++ > >>>>>>>> drivers/watchdog/Makefile | 5 +++ > >>>>>>>> drivers/watchdog/rti_wdt.c | 58 > >>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > >>>>>>>> drivers/watchdog/rti_wdt_fw.S | 20 ++++++++++++ > >>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/watchdog/rti_wdt_fw.S > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig > >>>>>>>> index f0ff2612a6..1a1fddfe9f 100644 > >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig > >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig > >>>>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,26 @@ config WDT_K3_RTI > >>>>>>>> Say Y here if you want to include support for the K3 > >>>>>>>> watchdog > >>>>>>>> timer (RTI module) available in the K3 generation of > >>>>>>>> processors. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +if WDT_K3_RTI > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>> +config WDT_K3_RTI_LOAD_FW > >>>>>>>> + bool "Load watchdog firmware" > >>>>>>>> + depends on REMOTEPROC > >>>>>>>> + help > >>>>>>>> + Automatically load the specified firmware image into the > >>>>>>>> MCU R5F > >>>>>>>> + core 0. On the AM65x, this firmware is supposed to handle > >>>>>>>> the expiry > >>>>>>>> + of the watchdog timer, typically by resetting the system. > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>> +config WDT_K3_RTI_FW_FILE > >>>>>>>> + string "Watchdog firmware image file" > >>>>>>>> + default "k3-rti-wdt.fw" > >>>>>>>> + depends on WDT_K3_RTI_LOAD_FW > >>>>>>>> + help > >>>>>>>> + Firmware image to be embedded into U-Boot and loaded on > >>>>>>>> watchdog > >>>>>>>> + start. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I need your input on this proach. Is it okay to include the linker > >>>>>>> file unders > >>>>>>> drivers? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe? I suppose the first thing that springs to mind is why aren't we > >>>>>> using binman and including this blob (which I happily see is GPLv2) > >>>>>> similar to how we do things with x86 for one example. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> See https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg377894.html > >>>>> > >>>>> Jan > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Did this help to answer open questions? Otherwise, please let me know. > >>>> > >>>> I'd also like to avoid that his patch alone blocks 1-3 of the series > >>>> needless - but I would also not mind getting everything in at once. > >>> > >>> Can you provide your reviewed-by if you are okay with this approach? > >> > >> I was kind of hoping Simon would chime in here on binman usage. So, > >> re-re-reading the above URL, yes, fsloader wouldn't be the right choice > >> for watchdog firmware. But I think binman_entry_find() and related > >> could work, in general, for this case of "need firmware blob embedded in > >> to image". That said, this isn't just any firmware blob, it's the > >> watchdog firmware. The less reliance on other things the safer it is. > >> That means this would be an exception to the general firmware blob > >> loading rule and yeah, OK, we can do it this way. Sorry for the delay. > > > > Yes I've been a little tied up recently. But I think this should use > > binman. We really don't want to be building binary firmware into > > U-Boot itself! > > > > Also Tom says, see x86 for a load of binaries of different types and > > how they are accessed at runttime. This is what binman is for. > > > > Please take the time and study my arguments. I'm open for better > proposals, but they need to be concrete and addressing my points.
Do you mean 'properly hashed' and 'easy access', or something else? What can binman not do? Regards, Simon