On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 04:09:29PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 14:29, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 6:54 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 10:37, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:20 PM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 03:07, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Provide a way for removing certain devicetree nodes and/or > > > > > > properties > > > > > > from the devicetree. This is needed to purge certain nodes and > > > > > > properties which may be relevant only in U-Boot. Such nodes and > > > > > > properties are then removed from the devicetree before it is passed > > > > > > to > > > > > > the kernel. This ensures that the devicetree passed to the OS does > > > > > > not > > > > > > contain any non-compliant nodes and properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > The removal of the nodes and properties is being done through an > > > > > > EVT_FT_FIXUP handler. I am not sure if the removal code needs to be > > > > > > behind any Kconfig symbol. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have only build tested this on sandbox, and tested on qemu arm64 > > > > > > virt platform. This being a RFC, I have not put this through a CI > > > > > > run. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sughosh Ganu (5): > > > > > > dt: Provide a way to remove non-compliant nodes and properties > > > > > > fwu: Add the fwu-mdata node for removal from devicetree > > > > > > capsule: Add the capsule-key property for removal from devicetree > > > > > > bootefi: Call the EVT_FT_FIXUP event handler > > > > > > doc: Add a document for non-compliant DT node/property removal > > > > > > > > > > > > cmd/bootefi.c | 18 +++++ > > > > > > .../devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst | 64 ++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > drivers/fwu-mdata/fwu-mdata-uclass.c | 5 ++ > > > > > > include/dt-structs.h | 11 +++ > > > > > > lib/Makefile | 1 + > > > > > > lib/dt_purge.c | 73 > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c | 7 ++ > > > > > > 7 files changed, 179 insertions(+) > > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > > doc/develop/devicetree/dt_non_compliant_purge.rst > > > > > > create mode 100644 lib/dt_purge.c > > > > > > > > > > What is the point of removing them? Instead, we should make sure that > > > > > we upstream the bindings and encourage SoC vendors to sync them. If we > > > > > remove them, no one will bother and U-Boot just becomes a dumping > > > > > ground. > > > > > > > > Well things like the binman entries in DT are U-Boot specific and not > > > > useful for HW related descriptions or for Linux or another OS being > > > > able to deal with HW so arguably we're already a dumping ground to > > > > some degree for not defining hardware. > > > > > > I have started the process to upstream the binman bindings. > > > > I don't think they should be in DT at all, they don't describe > > anything to do with hardware, or generally even the runtime of a > > device, they don't even describe the boot/runtime state of the > > firmware, they describe build time, so I don't see what that has to do > > with device tree? Can you explain that? To me those sorts of things > > should live in a build time style config file.
For the record, I tend to agree. > I beg to differ. Devicetree is more than just hardware and always has > been. See, for example the /chosen and /options nodes. There are exceptions... > We need run-time configuration here, since we cannot know at build > time what we will be asked to do by a previous firmware phase. Really, I don't want to have to care about the binman binding. If it is u-boot specific, then it should stay in u-boot. I took /options/u-boot/, but now I'm starting to have second thoughts on that being in dtschema if it is going to be continually and frequently extended. Validating it in SR does little. If a vendor is abusing /options/u-boot/ in some way they could just as easily remove the node in their u-boot fork to pass. SR is certainly not going to require the node be there. On A/B updates, that really doesn't seem like a u-boot specific problem to me. No one wants A/B updates in EDK2 or anything else? Rob