On 6/28/24 9:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Marek,
Hi,
---
common/spl/spl_fit.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
doc/device-tree-bindings/config.txt | 11 +++++++++++
2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Once this is figured out, can you extend test/image/spl_load_os.c to
test this code?
It seems there is nothing which would do even basic tests for SPL
fitImage DT handling in that test? Or am I reading the current test wrong ?
diff --git a/common/spl/spl_fit.c b/common/spl/spl_fit.c
index 988125be008..0a6b5ea8212 100644
--- a/common/spl/spl_fit.c
+++ b/common/spl/spl_fit.c
@@ -363,6 +363,7 @@ static int spl_fit_append_fdt(struct spl_image_info
*spl_image,
{
struct spl_image_info image_info;
int node, ret = 0, index = 0;
+ char dtoname[256];
/*
* Use the address following the image as target address for the
@@ -448,9 +449,13 @@ static int spl_fit_append_fdt(struct spl_image_info
*spl_image,
if (ret < 0)
break;
- /* Make room in FDT for changes from the overlay */
+ /*
+ * Make room in FDT for changes from the overlay,
+ * the overlay name and the trailing NUL byte in
+ * that name.
+ */
ret = fdt_increase_size(spl_image->fdt_addr,
- image_info.size);
+ image_info.size + strlen(str) +
1);
Oh and I missed the room for the property, sorry. It needs something like this:
ALIGN(strlen(str) + 1, 4) + 12 + 4
the first bit is the string-table size increase
12 is sizeof(struct fdt_property)
4 is the u32 size
Alos, is there any way to check that there is actually enough space to
increase the size?
fdt_increase_size() would fail if there isn't enough space, so that
should cover the check.
diff --git a/doc/device-tree-bindings/config.txt
b/doc/device-tree-bindings/config.txt
index f50c68bbdc3..7aa6d9a72c6 100644
--- a/doc/device-tree-bindings/config.txt
+++ b/doc/device-tree-bindings/config.txt
@@ -95,6 +95,17 @@ rootdisk-offset (int)
silent-console (int)
If present and non-zero, the console is silenced by default on boot.
+u-boot,spl-applied-dto-* (int)
+ Emitted by SPL into U-Boot control DT root node in case a DTO from
+ fitImage was applied on top of U-Boot control DT by the SPL fitImage
+ loader. The single integer cell indicates in which order was the DTO
+ applied by the SPL and matches the index of the DTO in the fitImage.
+ DTOs in fitImage may be skipped using board_spl_fit_append_fdt_skip(),
+ therefore the integers might not be monotonically incrementing, there
+ may be gaps. This property can be used to determine which DTOs were
+ applied by the SPL from running U-Boot by inspecting the U-Boot
+ control DT.
Should we send a binding with this? I wonder if it would be better to
make the filename a property value rather than including it in the
property name/string table? That way you would not need the
integers...the ordering would be enough.
E.g.
u-boot,spl-applied-dtos = "fdt-dto-imx8mp-dhcom-som-overlay-eth2xfast",
"fdt-dto-imx8mp-dhcom-pdk-overlay-eth2xfast";
But that might be more annoying to construct as you would probably
need fdt_setprop_placeholder()
It is easier to test for a presence of property from U-Boot shell, also
the property is integer where the integer indicates the index of the DTO
when it was applied.
