Hi Michal, On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 at 07:21, Michal Simek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 10/9/24 03:55, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 07:05, Michal Simek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Adding binman node with target images description can be unwanted feature > >> but as of today there is no way to disable it. > >> Also on size constrained systems it is not useful to add binman description > >> to DTB. > >> Introduce BINMAN_EXTERNAL_DTB Kconfig symbol which allows separate DTB for > >> target from DTB for binman itself. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> > >> Makefile | 2 +- > >> lib/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > > > > Doesn't this defeat one of the purposes of Binman, i.e. to document > > images? We do want the .dts to include the image description. What > > sort of problem is this causing? > > We have two boot flows. > The first one (default one) is using Xilinx FSBL for SOM initialization with > fit > image (DTBS) + u-boot.elf + tfa. > > The second one is using U-Boot SPL instead of FSBL. This flow is used by > buildroot for example. > > In perfect world I should describe both of these flows. I sent description for > the second as RFC here. > https://lore.kernel.org/r/de1b8dbabd5ab7f20d7aac217ec4f5074d39f1da.1728462767.git.michal.si...@amd.com
OK I'll take a look. > > but it is also reasonable to describe the first flow but I really don't want > both descriptions ends up in the target image. Why not? Knowing what is in the firmware is one of the goals of Binman. > > The second part is if you look at RFC and how fit-dtb.blob is composed. It is > one DTB + DTBS which are composed from overlays. > > xilinx_zynqmp_kria_defconfig has > CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE="zynqmp-smk-k26-revA" > > That's why binman node should go to this DTB but because other images are > composed with overlays binman node is spread to all DTBs inside FIT image. > > It means one binman description is in fit-dtb.blob 14 times which is far from > ideal. Yes, but I think what you are saying is that U-Boot doesn't need the description, so you don't need it to appear in the dtbs in the FIT. Is that right? If so, then I think we should add a way to remove it, in Binman, perhaps with a property in the top-level binman image. > > Third part is that I can't see binman node in DT schema or bindings that's > why I > expect this will be reported and I can't see any code which removes it before > handing off to OS which is required for System Ready IR. > And IIRC removing is also problematic for measured boot. I did start this e.g. [1] but have not got back to it. Help would be appreciated if it is important to you. I am not sure about System Ready IR, but we shouldn't need to remove this. Also, please add an fdtmap somewhere so the image can be listed. Regards, Simon [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
