[PATCH v3 08/12] sunxi: Convert 64-bit boards to use binman

[Michal Simek]

Hi,

On 06. 09. 20 2:18, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Samuel,
> 
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 17:10, Samuel Holland <samuel at sholland.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/1/20 6:14 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> At present 64-bit sunxi boards use the Makefile to create a FIT, using
>>> USE_SPL_FIT_GENERATOR. This is deprecated.
>>>
>>> Update sunxi to use binman instead.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> (no changes since v2)
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Add a 'fit-fdt-list' property
>>> - Fix 'board' typo in commit message
>>>
>>>  Kconfig                        |  3 +-
>>>  Makefile                       | 18 ++--------
>>>  arch/arm/dts/sunxi-u-boot.dtsi | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Kconfig b/Kconfig
>>> index 883e3f71d01..837b2f517ae 100644
>>> --- a/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/Kconfig
>>> @@ -659,12 +659,11 @@ config SPL_FIT_SOURCE
>>>
>>>  config USE_SPL_FIT_GENERATOR
>>>       bool "Use a script to generate the .its script"
>>> -     default y if SPL_FIT
>>> +     default y if SPL_FIT && !ARCH_SUNXI
>>
>> Now `make u-boot.itb` doesn't work.
>>
>> u-boot.itb is helpful to have because, with CONFIG_OF_LIST, it can be shared
>> across all boards of a platform. Only SPL is board-specific (on arm64 sunxi, at
>> least).
> 
> It is generated, just with a different filename.
> 
>>
>> Is there a way to make binman also write the FIT without the SPL? Would that
>> require duplicating the whole binman node?
> 
> Yes it would. We could get more complicated and allow an image to
> build on another perhaps. I'm not sure what is easiest here.
> 
>>
>>>  config SPL_FIT_GENERATOR
>>>       string ".its file generator script for U-Boot FIT image"
>>>       depends on USE_SPL_FIT_GENERATOR
>>> -     default "board/sunxi/mksunxi_fit_atf.sh" if SPL_LOAD_FIT && ARCH_SUNXI
>>>       default "arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py" if SPL_LOAD_FIT && ARCH_ROCKCHIP
>>>       default "arch/arm/mach-zynqmp/mkimage_fit_atf.sh" if SPL_LOAD_FIT && ARCH_ZYNQMP
>>>       default "arch/riscv/lib/mkimage_fit_opensbi.sh" if SPL_LOAD_FIT && RISCV
>>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
>>> index 5b4e60496d6..65024c74089 100644
>>> --- a/Makefile
>>> +++ b/Makefile
>>> @@ -923,11 +923,6 @@ INPUTS-$(CONFIG_REMAKE_ELF) += u-boot.elf
>>>  INPUTS-$(CONFIG_EFI_APP) += u-boot-app.efi
>>>  INPUTS-$(CONFIG_EFI_STUB) += u-boot-payload.efi
>>>
>>> -# Build a combined spl + u-boot image for sunxi
>>> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI)$(CONFIG_ARM64)$(CONFIG_SPL),yyy)
>>> -INPUTS-y += u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin
>>> -endif
>>> -
>>>  # Generate this input file for binman
>>>  ifeq ($(CONFIG_SPL),)
>>>  INPUTS-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MEDIATEK) += u-boot-mtk.bin
>>> @@ -1024,13 +1019,9 @@ PHONY += inputs
>>>  inputs: $(INPUTS-y)
>>>
>>>  all: .binman_stamp inputs
>>> -# Hack for sunxi which doesn't have a proper binman definition for
>>> -# 64-bit boards
>>> -ifneq ($(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI)$(CONFIG_ARM64),yy)
>>>  ifeq ($(CONFIG_BINMAN),y)
>>>       $(call if_changed,binman)
>>>  endif
>>> -endif
>>>
>>>  # Timestamp file to make sure that binman always runs
>>>  .binman_stamp: FORCE
>>> @@ -1336,6 +1327,8 @@ cmd_binman = $(srctree)/tools/binman/binman $(if $(BINMAN_DEBUG),-D) \
>>>               $(if $(BINMAN_VERBOSE),-v$(BINMAN_VERBOSE)) \
>>>               build -u -d u-boot.dtb -O . -m --allow-missing \
>>>               -I . -I $(srctree) -I $(srctree)/board/$(BOARDDIR) \
>>> +             -I arch/$(ARCH)/dts -a of-list=$(CONFIG_OF_LIST) \
>>> +             -a atf-bl31-path=${BL31} \
>>>               $(BINMAN_$(@F))
>>>
>>>  OBJCOPYFLAGS_u-boot.ldr.hex := -I binary -O ihex
>>> @@ -1625,13 +1618,6 @@ u-boot-x86-reset16.bin: u-boot FORCE
>>>
>>>  endif # CONFIG_X86
>>>
>>> -ifneq ($(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI),)
>>> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM64),y)
>>> -u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin: spl/sunxi-spl.bin u-boot.itb FORCE
>>> -     $(call if_changed,cat)
>>> -endif
>>> -endif
>>> -
>>
>> Now `make u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin` doesn't work.
>>
>> This is less of an issue, but still probably breaks some scripts. It breaks
>> mine, at least.
> 
> Why do you specify a target? Doesn't it build the file without the target?
> 
> One problem with buildman is that there is no definitely of what files
> it will produce when run, or at least there is, but it is in the
> binman description itself.
> 
> This means that 'make clean' doesn't work fully, for example. I can
> think of a few ways to implement this. One would be to put a list of
> target files into a text file and have 'make clean' use that. We could
> also have an option to tell binman to produce a list of files it would
> generate if run. Then we might be able to tell binman to generate a
> particular file.

Why not just to generate all binman images to specific folder?

Thanks,
Michal