Hi Ilias,
On 9/11/23 09:56, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 09:38, Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com> wrote:
On 9/11/23 08:17, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 22:14, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
Hi Ilias,
On Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at 03:31, Ilias Apalodimas
<ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Fri, 1 Sept 2023 at 18:51, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
Hi Ilias,
On Fri, 1 Sept 2023 at 01:50, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org>
wrote:
[...]
+config OF_BLOBLIST
+ bool "DTB is provided by a bloblist"
+ help
+ Select this to read the devicetree from the bloblist. This allows
+ using a bloblist to transfer the devicetree between U-Boot phases.
+ The devicetree is stored in the bloblist by an early phase so that
+ U-Boot can read it.
+
I dont think this is a good idea. We used to have 4-5 different options
here, which we tried to clean up and ended up with two very discrete
options. Why do we have to reintroduce a new one? Doesn't that bloblist
have a header of some sort? The bloblist literally comes from a previous
stage bootloader which is what OF_BOARD is here for. So why can't we just
read the header and figure out if the magic of the bloblist matches?
No, OF_BOARD is a hack to allow boards to do what they like with the FDT.
This patch is a standard mechanism to pass the DT from one firmware
phase to the next. We have spent quite a bit of time creating a spec
for it, and we should use it.
Where exactly am I objecting using the spec? Can you please re-read my email?
I am actually pointing out we should use the spec *properly*. So
instead of having a Kconfig option for the DT, which is pretty
pointless, we should parse the bloblist. If the header defined by
the *spec* is found, we should just search for the DT in there.
What you are doing here, is take the spec, pick a very specific item
that the list contains, and create a Kconfig option out of it. Which
basically ignores the discoverable options of the bloblist. For
example, that bloblist can also contain an entry to a TPM eventlog.
Should we start creating Kconfig options for all the firmware handoff
entries that are defined on that spec?
OK so that is a different thing. What should it do if it expects to find a
bloblist but cannot? I want it to throw an error, because I am trying to make
the boot deterministic. What do you think?
That's fine by me. You can even put that under IS_ENABLED for the
bloblist inside the existing OF_BOARD check. So I was thinking
- If no bloblist is required in Kconfig options we do the hacks we used to
- if bloblist is selected and the config option is OF_BOARD, throw an
error and mention that the previous stage loader should hand over a DT
Is that what you had in mind?
Yes, that sounds good to me.
But I still think we need an OF_BLOBLIST option to control whether the
devicetree comes from there.
Otherwise we will end up with people
using OF_BOARD to work around it. We also have the SPL case which does
not pass the DT in a bloblist...in fact SPL typically doesn't even
have the full DT.
Wouldn't IS_ENABLED(BLOBLIST) || IS_ENABLED(SPL_BLOBLIST) be enough?
Inside the OF_BOARD portion of the function, search for a bloblist if
the option is enabled. If you can't find a bloblist and the DT within
that bloblist, then error out
Just my 2c here.
I think all options should be possible to disable. It means I can imagine to
disable u-boot not to take care about DT provided from previous stage. The same
is for TPM event log. IMHO every stage should have an option to simply ignore
data pass from previous stage. I don't really mind how it is done but there
should be an option to by purpose say to ignore the part of pass data.
That would be done by disabling BLOBLIST. I don't think having a Kconfig to say
"I want a bloblist, but I only want the DT from there" is reasonable
(or for any other item the bloblist can carry). OF_BOARD means the
DT will come from a previous stage loader. If bloblist is enabled then
the DT must come from there.
I don't agree on this. If bloblist is enabled and DT is passed SW should have a
freedom to ignore it.
At start everything is likely in sync but later stages before U-Boot can stay at
certain version but there could be a need to update u-boot where DT from
previous stage could be broken.
Regarding DT part. We are experimenting with TF-A injecting for example DDR
memory reservation to DT.
Injection is working properly if you are using single DT but in SOM case we are
using FIT image with a lot of DTBs inside (issue with checksums calculation).
I see couple of platforms (IIRC renesas/imx) which are using DT overlays and
passing it via specific registers. For these using bloblist might be right way
to go.
Yes that's in fact the purpose of that spec.
Good that I read it properly.
Thanks,
Michal
