[PATCH v4 20/27] Makefile: Warn against using CONFIG_SPL_FIT_GENERATOR
Simon Glass
sjg at chromium.org
Sun Aug 30 22:37:49 CEST 2020
Hi Michal,
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 08:12, Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 25. 08. 20 18:57, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 09:13, Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> On 25. 08. 20 17:04, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> Hi Michal,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 08:12, Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Simon,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 22. 08. 20 17:08, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Michal,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 00:49, Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Simon,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 16. 08. 20 5:39, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Michal,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 07:28, Michal Simek <monstr at monstr.eu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ne 19. 7. 2020 v 22:06 odesílatel Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> napsal:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This option is used to run arch-specific shell scripts which produce .its
> >>>>>>>>> files which are used to produce FIT images. We already have binman which
> >>>>>>>>> is designed to produce firmware images. It is more powerful and has tests.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So this option should be deprecated and not used. Existing uses should be
> >>>>>>>>> migrated.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Mentions of this in code reviews over the last year or so do not seem to
> >>>>>>>>> have resulted in action, and things are getting worse.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So let's add a warning.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (no changes since v1)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Makefile | 9 +++++++++
> >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> >>>>>>>>> index f1b5be1882..d73c10a973 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/Makefile
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/Makefile
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -1148,6 +1148,13 @@ ifneq ($(CONFIG_DM_ETH),y)
> >>>>>>>>> @echo >&2 "See doc/driver-model/migration.rst for more info."
> >>>>>>>>> @echo >&2 "===================================================="
> >>>>>>>>> endif
> >>>>>>>>> +endif
> >>>>>>>>> +ifneq ($(CONFIG_SPL_FIT_GENERATOR),)
> >>>>>>>>> + @echo >&2 "===================== WARNING ======================"
> >>>>>>>>> + @echo >&2 "This board uses CONFIG_SPL_FIT_GENERATOR. Please migrate"
> >>>>>>>>> + @echo >&2 "to binman instead, to avoid the proliferation of"
> >>>>>>>>> + @echo >&2 "arch-specific scripts with no tests."
> >>>>>>>>> + @echo >&2 "===================================================="
> >>>>>>>>> endif
> >>>>>>>>> @# Check that this build does not use CONFIG options that we do not
> >>>>>>>>> @# know about unless they are in Kconfig. All the existing CONFIG
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -1345,6 +1352,8 @@ endif
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> # Boards with more complex image requirements can provide an .its source file
> >>>>>>>>> # or a generator script
> >>>>>>>>> +# NOTE: Please do not use this. We are migrating away from Makefile rules to use
> >>>>>>>>> +# binman instead.
> >>>>>>>>> ifneq ($(CONFIG_SPL_FIT_SOURCE),"")
> >>>>>>>>> U_BOOT_ITS := u-boot.its
> >>>>>>>>> $(U_BOOT_ITS): $(subst ",,$(CONFIG_SPL_FIT_SOURCE))
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> 2.28.0.rc0.105.gf9edc3c819-goog
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I just got to this conversion and I am curious how that transition
> >>>>>>>> should look like.
> >>>>>>>> I found how FIT image is created which is fine but I didn't find any
> >>>>>>>> reference on how to generate images based on CONFIG_OF_LIST.
> >>>>>>>> If you look at arch/arm/mach-zynqmp/mkimage_fit_atf.sh you will see
> >>>>>>>> that I loop over this entry and create multiple DT nodes and the same
> >>>>>>>> amount of configurations to cover it. Is this supported by binman?
> >>>>>>>> If yes, what's the syntax for it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The easiest way is probably to create a new entry type, like zynq-fit.
> >>>>>>> Then you can generate the DT using the sequence writer functions. See
> >>>>>>> _ReadSubNodes() in fit.py for an example.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You can perhaps have a template subnode and use that in a for loop to
> >>>>>>> generate the nodes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I tried several configurations and we can use that for generating qspi
> >>>>>>>> images and also images with different configurations to have them
> >>>>>>>> ready
> >>>>>>>> but first I need to be able to handle the case above.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I was thinking of converting sunxi which has the same need, but it
> >>>>>>> sounds like you are on the case. Let me know if you need help.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nope. I just saw that message and started to play with it to find out
> >>>>>> what needs to be done and how this fits to bigger picture. If this
> >>>>>> doesn't work directly then the work needs to be planned which will take
> >>>>>> time especially when this utility is new for us and we could have issues
> >>>>>> with writing code in python. Would be good if you can do the first shot
> >>>>>> because you know this utility and I am more than happy to test it, try
> >>>>>> and adopt if needed for our case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sunxi is very similar case as is zynqmp. Difference is they hardcode
> >>>>>> default configuration to config_1. ZynqMP is setting up default based on
> >>>>>> default DT configured at that time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In connection to binman I see that there would be a need to generate
> >>>>>> images with ATF and without ATF in configuration node and with different
> >>>>>> default configuration. There could be also a need to add additional
> >>>>>> loadable entry such as bitstreams.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Back to zynq-fit new entry type. I don't think it should be zynq/zynqmp
> >>>>>> type because as was state in commit message u-boot.itb generation is
> >>>>>> very similar for all these boards that's why name for this new entry
> >>>>>> should be generic.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I sent an initial series to add this to binman. I've since found a few
> >>>>> problems so will send a v2 at some point. You can try it out at
> >>>>> u-boot-dm/binman-working
> >>>>
> >>>> I looked at this branch and add my changes on the top.
> >>>>
> >>>> The first thing what I see is that I miss fit,fdt-list = "of-list"; in
> >>>> sunxi dt file. I had to add it to work for me.
> >>>
> >>> Ah yes, I decided to add this at the last minute so it is not relying
> >>> on a convention.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> With BINMAN_FDT enabled I am getting error that there is no valid
> >>>> "binman node" in DT. I didn't study that code yet but that's the point
> >>>> of keeping this DT node out there?
> >>>
> >>> Is this in SPL? Perhaps something is filtering out the node.
> >>
> >> Nope in full U-Boot but in SPL flow. SPL->ATF->FULL U-Boot.
> >
> > That needs debugging. I can't understand how the /binman node can be
> > missing in U-Boot. The C library is very simple and doesn't handle
> > finding nodes in multiple images...perhaps that is the problem?
>
> I found the reason for this behavior. On our platforms we are checking
> specific address where DTB can be placed. And because I have played with
> it also with previous image. It was pick up automatically.
>
> But still missing why BINMAN_FDT should be enabled by default on
> platforms which don't call any binman functions. I see that you are
> calling that functions from x86 platforms to try to map and find out
> some image offsets/positions and it looks like that you are loading them.
> I can imagine that this could be use for example for better space
> utilization that my boot.bin with SPL can be followed immediately by
> u-boot.itb in qspi. But for supporting this I expect spl_spi.c needs to
> be aligned. And adding support in a generic way there needs to be an
> agreement on node name which should be loaded.
If you don't need CONFIG_BINMAN_FDT then it is fine to disable it. You
could do that by updating the default condition there, or selecting a
different value for your arch.
>
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is my binman configuration.
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/zynqmp-u-boot.dtsi
> >>>> b/arch/arm/dts/zynqmp-u-boot.dtsi
> >>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>> index 000000000000..b3364d3e2df8
> >>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/zynqmp-u-boot.dtsi
> >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
> >>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >>>> +/*
> >>>> + * Copyright (C) 2020 Xilinx, Inc.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +
> >>>> +#include <config.h>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +/ {
> >>>> + binman: binman {
> >>>> + multiple-images;
> >>>> + };
> >>>> +};
> >>>> +
> >>>> +&binman {
> >>>> + u-boot-itb {
> >>>> + filename = "u-boot.itb";
> >>>> + fit {
> >>>> + fit,external-offset = <CONFIG_FIT_EXTERNAL_OFFSET>;
> >>>> + description = "FIT image with ATF support";
> >>>> + fit,fdt-list = "of-list";
> >>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + images {
> >>>> + uboot {
> >>>> + description = "U-Boot (64-bit)";
> >>>> + type = "firmware";
> >>>> + os = "u-boot";
> >>>> + arch = "arm64";
> >>>> + compression = "none";
> >>>> + load = <CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE>;
> >>>> + entry = <CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE>;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + u-boot-nodtb {
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + atf {
> >>>> + description = "ARM Trusted Firmware";
> >>>> + type = "firmware";
> >>>> + os = "arm-trusted-firmware";
> >>>> + arch = "arm64";
> >>>> + compression = "none";
> >>>> + load = <0xfffea000>; /* FIXME */
> >>>> + entry = <0xfffea000>;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + blob-ext {
> >>>> + filename = "bl31.bin";
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + @fdt-SEQ {
> >>>> + description = "NAME";
> >>>> + type = "flat_dt";
> >>>> + arch = "arm64";
> >>>> + compression = "none";
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + };
> >>>> +
> >>>> + configurations {
> >>>> + default = "config-1";
> >>>> + @config-SEQ {
> >>>> + description = "NAME";
> >>>> + firmware = "atf";
> >>>> + loadables = "uboot";
> >>>> + fdt = "fdt-SEQ";
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + };
> >>>> + fdtmap{};
> >>>> + };
> >>>> +
> >>>> +};
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway compare to current script default option is hardcoded to
> >>>> config-1.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Current arch/arm/mach-zynqmp/mkimage_fit_atf.sh is also
> >>>> setting up default option based on selected default DT (I can fix this
> >>>> by implementing board_fit_config_name_match() but IIRC it is looping
> >>>> over all configurations and slowing down boot).
> >>>
> >>> Is this using an environment variable to select the default? Would it
> >>> be OK to put this in the DT for each individual board?
> >>
> >> I have added this code to board_fit_config_name_match() to select proper
> >> configuration from SPL
> >>
> >> + if (!strcmp(name, DEVICE_TREE))
> >> + return 0;
> >>
> >> DEVICE_TREE is setup in generated/dt.h.
> >>
> >> I am not quite sure what you mean by put this to each individual board.
> >> Like a property for SPL which DT should be select?
> >
> > OK I see. In that case I think we need another entry argument to pass
> > ${DEVICE_TREE} to the fit entry, and pass it in to binman from the
> > Makefile with another -a parameter.
>
> Can you please include this option?
OK I'll add something in the v2 series.
>
> Also what's the easiest way to compose multiple images though binman and
> share images among others configurations?
>
> I will generate u-boot.itb through binman and then I want to use this
> file for composing qspi image. Should I just point to u-boot.itb as blob
> with filename?
At present binman doesn't support including one image in another,
although since generation of images is ordered, yes it should be
possible to do it that way.
> Layout for qspi is quite simply spl/boot.bin which is generated as
> ./tools/mkimage -T zynqmpimage -R ./"" -n
> "/home/monstr/data/disk/u-boot-bins/zynqmp/pmu.bin" -d
> spl/u-boot-spl-align.bin spl/boot.bin >/dev/null && cat /dev/null
OK you should be able to use the mkimage entry-type for that.
>
> And then u-boot.itb placed at CONFIG_SYS_SPI_KERNEL_OFFS offset.
OK, you can access CONFIG options in the .dtsi
Can you please point me to the docs for zynqmp in the U-Boot tree? I
see stuff about zynq inthe tree but it is quite old. I think there
needs to be a link from doc/board/xilinx
Also is there a low-cost zynqmp board about? I'm thinking about adding
it to my lab.
Finally, these boards seem to use CONFIG_OF_EMBED which is not
allowed. Can you fix that sometime?
Regards,
Simon
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list