On 27.06.21 20:18, Simon Glass wrote: > 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?
Binman itself can stick things into binary images. But that is at most half of the tasks needed here. I would need concrete guidance how to - access that binary from u-boot proper in a reasonably simple way - make sure the binary can be signed and the signature is evaluated before using it Jan -- Siemens AG, T RDA IOT Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux