Hi Aristo, On 1/13/26 07:09, Aristo Chen wrote: > Hi E Shattow, > > Aristo Chen <[email protected]> 於 2025年11月5日週三 下午8:21寫道： >> >> Hi E Shattow, >> >> E Shattow <[email protected]> 於 2025年9月24日 週三 下午9:31寫道： >>> >>> Hi Aristo, >>> >>> On 9/24/25 04:43, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>> On 06:37-20250924, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>>> On 10:59-20250914, Aristo Chen wrote: >>>>>> This patch series enhances FIT image robustness by adding **memory >>>>>> region overlap detection** to `mkimage` and fixing existing overlaps >>>>>> in DTS files and `binman` tests. >>>> >>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Looks like i see a build regression in linux-next after this series. >>>> >>>> I fat fingered that one.. sorry, I meant u-boot next. >>>> >>>> >>>> Fails at commit 4d84fa1261eb, last pass was on commit d81c1118580f >>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://gist.github.com/nmenon/b2fc9e7680cc296062c7dced94105f76 >>>> >>>> I believe there are outstanding comments on V1 that have'nt been >>>> addressed either. Can we revert/drop this series for now while the >>>> comments are addressed? >>>> >>> >>> Similar to Nishanth, I am seeing a build regression, itb.map: >>> >>> ImagePos Offset Size Name >>> <none> 00000000 <none> itb >>> <none> 00000000 <none> fit >>> <none> 00000000 000c1698 uboot >>> <none> 00000000 000c1698 u-boot-nodtb >>> <none> 000c1698 00202128 opensbi >>> <none> 00000000 00202128 opensbi >>> >>> Yields this error: >>> ... >>> MKIMAGE fit-dtb.blob >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-1' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-2' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-3' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-4' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-5' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-6' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-7' >>> CAT u-boot-fit-dtb.bin >>> ... >>> MKIMAGE u-boot.img >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-1' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-2' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-3' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-4' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-5' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-6' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-7' >>> COPY u-boot.dtb >>> MKIMAGE u-boot-dtb.img >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-1' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-2' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-3' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-4' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-5' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-6' >>> Warning: not able to get `load` of node 'fdt-7' >>> BINMAN .binman_stamp >>> Wrote map file './itb.map' to show errors >>> binman: Error 1 running 'mkimage -t -F ./itb.fit.fit': Warning: not able >>> to get `load` of node 'fdt-1' >>> [Config: conf-1] Error: Overlap detected: >>> - uboot: [0x40200000 - 0x402c1698] >>> - opensbi: [0x40000000 - 0x40202128] >>> >>> make[1]: *** [/tmp/u-boot.2.git/Makefile:1339: .binman_stamp] Error 1 >>> make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/es/build/u-boot' >>> make: *** [Makefile:198: sub-make] Error 2 >>> make: Leaving directory '/tmp/u-boot.2.git' >>> >>> If you would like to reproduce the issue, use config >>> starfive_visionfive2_defconfig and pass to OPENSBI env variable the path >>> of opensbi object 'fw_dynamic.bin' built using PLATFORM=generic, with >>> the ordinary gcc riscv64 toolchain. The starfive visionfive2 board >>> target in U-Boot supports multiple vendors and boards selected at >>> runtime and is an example of a more complex FIT usage that you may be >>> interested in for comparison and testing. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> -E >> >> Sorry that I didn't noticed that my previous email sent to you was not >> including other people >> >> Long story short, I am now able to reproduce the overlap issue that >> you have encountered, and >> I spent some time trying to understand what is opensbi, please correct >> me if I am wrong >> >> AFAICT, there will be 2 types of firmware built, one is >> `fw_payload.bin`, and the other is >> `fw_dynamic.bin` >> - fw_payload.bin: contains the next-stage binary, so the file size >> will be bigger >> - fw_dynamic.bin: provides information about the next boot stage at >> runtime, so the size is smaller >> >> and here are the size of these 2 files built in my environment >> ``` >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 ubuntu ubuntu 273048 Oct 25 14:49 fw_dynamic.bin >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 ubuntu ubuntu 2105656 Oct 25 14:49 fw_payload.bin >> ``` >> >> When using my overlap checking mechanism, and passing the >> fw_dynamic.bin to build U-Boot, >> there is no overlap issue. However, when using fw_payload.bin, there >> will be an overlap issue. >> >> AFAICT, the SPL will load the opensbi firmware(assuming fw_payload.bin >> here) first, then load >> U-Boot into memory, and then jump to opensbi firmware, so I was a bit >> confused why the >> overlapped opensbi still works? >> >> I will find some time to figure out how the whole loading/booting >> process looks like, but it would >> be greatly appreciated if you can share some insight, thanks! > > I finally had some time to revisit this and managed to get a VisionFive2 > board for local testing. > > While trying to make it bootable I noticed the following docs: > - > https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/board/starfive/visionfive2.html#second-stage-bootloader-opensbi-fw-dynamic-bin-u-boot-main > - https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/StarFive_VisionFive_2#Building_OpenSBI > > Both appear to recommend using OpenSBI’s fw_dynamic.bin when building > U‑Boot. I couldn’t find any guidance on using fw_payload.bin together > with U‑Boot, which made me wonder why fw_payload.bin was used in your > earlier report. >
Likely I mixed up the filenames when writing in conversation, as I did when writing on the opensbi mailing list about a dependency tracking bug in opensbi build system: https://lore.kernel.org/opensbi/[email protected]/ and https://lore.kernel.org/opensbi/[email protected]/ ...which is clearly a mistake to write "OPENSBI=/path/to/fw_payload.bin" when it should instead be "OPENSBI=/path/to/fw_dynamic.bin", acknowledged in the follow-up message: https://lore.kernel.org/opensbi/[email protected]/ > Could you clarify whether there is documentation (or a specific > requirement) that calls for fw_payload.bin in this flow? If the intended > path is fw_dynamic.bin, then the overlap issue disappears for me > For the VisionFive2 and derivative boards, I intended to refer to fw_dynamic.bin only. If I mention otherwise it was in error or for not knowing what I'm looking at and reporting more information than required. There are RISC-V boards not related to VisionFive2 or its StarFive JH-7110 SoC that do use the fw_payload.bin approach but I think I just didn't notice the difference when transcribing to e-mail. > Thanks for your help and guidance. >> >> Best regards, >> Aristo > > Best regards, > Aristo Thanks very much for the follow-up, -E
