[U-Boot] What if ATF can be part of U-Boot source, like SPL?

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 04:20:41PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 6/30/19 4:17 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 04:03:52PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> On 6/30/19 3:57 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 08:32:00PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In terms of code maintenance and development feasibility it is always
> >>>> a better approach to have out-of-tree code or binary to be part of
> >>>> in-house source tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is what exactly it was done for SPL, if I'm not wrong. So can we
> >>>> do the same thing for ATF on ARM64 SoCs?
> >>>>
> >>>> We are using ATF (on Allwinner) to switch EL3 to EL2 for start loading
> >>>> U-Boot proper and minimal PSCI, PMIC initialization. So assuming the
> >>>> functionality of ATF (like here) is limited so the code it require can
> >>>> be limited too, so why can't this code to be part of U-Boot tree?
> >>>>
> >>>> This would ultimately avoid out-off-tree ATF builds with associated
> >>>> variable exporting during u-boot builds.
> >>>>
> >>>> More over this idea would also help to design a single-step bootloader
> >>>> where it can't depends on out-of-tree sources.
> >>>>
> >>>> Code sync from ATF source to U-Boot can be possible in-terms licensing
> >>>> point-of-view since ATF licensed under BSD-3-Clause.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm thinking this can be a worth-idea to look at it and I'm sure It
> >>>> may require some hard changes and other things to consider but just
> >>>> posted to understand how hard or feasible or meaningful it is?
> >>>>
> >>>> Feel free for any comments?
> >>>
> >>> Given that we have "TPL" and "SPL", my "pie in the sky" wish would be
> >>> for the ability to build different U-Boots to fill the different aspects
> >>> of the aarch64 boot flow.
> >>>
> >>> That said, patches that would in turn allow for users to locally add ATF
> >>> as a git submodule and then build that, if cleanly done, could be
> >>> interesting.  But must not impact the normal build flow.
> >>
> >> So can we also add Linux as a submodule ? And glibc ? Maybe busybox too ?
> > 
> > Just as you suggested Jagan look at other SoCs and how they assemble
> > images, I think you also need to take a wider look around.  The concept
> > of "take U-Boot, other firmware blobs, combine and mangle that" is
> > somewhat widely used.  It's not just sunxi that spits out a "can't find
> > ATF, this image won't boot!" warning. 
> 
> So, U-Boot spits out that it cannot find kernel image and refuses to
> boot, do we also import Linux into the codebase because of that ?

It's a build time warning, because we're generating the image that
people expect to use to initialize their device and we must not produce
images that will brick the system.

> But Linux also spits that it cannot find init and refuses to boot. Do we
> import systemd/sysvinit/upstart/... because of that ?
> 
> No, we do not. That's what build systems like OE or buildroot or whatnot
> are for. If you want to assemble your image by hand, that's also fine,
> surely you should be capable of replicating what the documentation / OE
> / buildroot recipe suggests.

You're not suggesting OE / buildroot for day to day development of
U-Boot are you?

> > If we can cleanly and solve that
> > by easy for users to add git submodules to their tree (I am _not_ saying
> > mainline U-Boot add submodules, to be clear) and they then get
> > functional images, that will help a lot of different groups.  We have a
> > lot of README files today in-tree telling people to jump through hoops
> > to get ATF and put it somewhere and run another tool on top.
> 
> IMO ATF is completely separate from U-Boot and can be updated
> separately, just like Linux, so I don't see how this would help.
> Update the READMEs if you want, that would help the most I think.

If you don't see how it would help then I think you need to broaden your
development horizons.  I can see how "make all" producing an image that
won't brick your device being helpful.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190630/620b7987/attachment.sig>