I guess this reply got dropped due to the list migration, just a gentle
ping to ask if everyone's okay with this change.
Thanks!
On Mon Aug 10, 2026 at 5:36 PM IST, Anshul Dalal wrote:
> On Wed Jul 29, 2026 at 4:12 PM IST, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>> Hi Anshul,
>>
>> On 7/29/26 12:24 PM, Anshul Dalal wrote:
>>> The phandles used inside a template are not copied to the node inserting
>>> the template, leading to a missing phandle error.
>>>
>>> The following example can be used to reproduce the issue:
>>>
>>> &binman {
>>> some_template: template-0 {
>>> ti-secure-rom {
>>> content = <&some_data>;
>>> keyfile = "some_key";
>>> };
>>> some_data: blob-ext {
>>> optional;
>>> };
>>> };
>>> output-bin {
>>> insert-template = <&some_template>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>
>> What happens if you insert the template *twice*.
>>
>> e.g. have:
>>
>> &binman {
>> some_template: template-0 {
>> ti-secure-rom {
>> content = <&some_data>;
>> keyfile = "some_key";
>> };
>> some_data: blob-ext {
>> optional;
>> };
>> };
>> output-bin {
>> insert-template = <&some_template>;
>> };
>> output-bin2 {
>> insert-template = <&some_template>;
>> };
>> };
>>
>> ? Gut feeling is that this will fail to build because we now have the
>> same label for two different nodes.
>
> Yes, it will cause a failure due to duplicated phandles. And as per the
> docs[1], it seems to be an expected qwirk of how templates work.
>
> [1]:
> https://docs.u-boot.org/en/v2026.04/develop/package/binman.html#dealing-with-phandles
>
> Regards,
> Anshul
