[PATCH v6 00/25] fdt: Make OF_BOARD a boolean option

[François Ozog]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 19:15, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis at xs4all.nl> wrote:

> > From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org>
> > Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 19:03:46 +0200
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 18:38, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 05:33:53PM +0100, François Ozog wrote:
> > > > Hi Simon
> > > >
> > > > Le jeu. 2 déc. 2021 à 17:00, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> a écrit
> :
> > > >
> > > > > With Ilias' efforts we have dropped OF_PRIOR_STAGE and OF_HOSTFILE
> so
> > > > > there are only three ways to obtain a devicetree:
> > > > >
> > > > >    - OF_SEPARATE - the normal way, where the devicetree is built
> and
> > > > >       appended to U-Boot
> > > > >    - OF_EMBED - for development purposes, the devicetree is
> embedded in
> > > > >       the ELF file (also used for EFI)
> > > > >    - OF_BOARD - the board figures it out on its own
> > > > >
> > > > > The last one is currently set up so that no devicetree is needed
> at all
> > > > > in the U-Boot tree. Most boards do provide one, but some don't.
> Some
> > > > > don't even provide instructions on how to boot on the board.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problems with this approach are documented in another patch in
> this
> > > > > series: "doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage"
> > > > >
> > > > > In practice, OF_BOARD is not really distinct from OF_SEPARATE. Any
> board
> > > > > can obtain its devicetree at runtime, even it is has a devicetree
> built
> > > > > in U-Boot. This is because U-Boot may be a second-stage bootloader
> and its
> > > > > caller may have a better idea about the hardware available in the
> machine.
> > > > > This is the case with a few QEMU boards, for example.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it makes no sense to have OF_BOARD as a 'choice'. It should be
> an
> > > > > option, available with either OF_SEPARATE or OF_EMBED.
> > > > >
> > > > > This series makes this change, adding various missing devicetree
> files
> > > > > (and placeholders) to make the build work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note: If board maintainers are able to add their own patch to add
> the
> > > > > files, some patches in this series can be dropped.
> > > > >
> > > > > It also provides a few qemu clean-ups discovered along the way. The
> > > > > qemu-riscv64_spl problem is fixed.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20210919215111.3830278-3-sjg@chromium.org/
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v6:
> > > > > - Fix description of OF_BOARD so it refers just to the current
> state
> > > > > - Explain that the 'two devicetrees' refers to two *control*
> devicetrees
> > > > > - Expand the commit message based on comments
> > > > > - Expand the commit message based on comments
> > > >
> > > > You haven’t addressed any concerns expressed on the mailing list.so
> I am
> > > > not in favor of this new version either.
> > > > If you make a version without « fake DTs » as you name them, there
> are good
> > > > advances in the documentation and other areas that would be better in
> > > > mainline….
> > > > If I am the only one thinking this way and the patch can be
> accepted, I
> > > > would love there is a warning in capital letters at the top of the
> DTS fake
> > > > files that explains the intent of this fake DT, the possible
> outcomes of
> > > > not using the one provided by the platform and the right way of
> dealing
> > > > with DTs for the platform.
> > >
> > > This is the part that I too am still unhappy about.  I do not want
> > > reference or fake or whatever device trees in the U-Boot source tree.
> > > We should be able to _remove_ the ones we have, that are not required,
> > > with doc/board/...rst explaining how to get / view one.  Not adding
> > > more.
> >
> > So this is a key point for me and the reason I completely disagree
> > with this approach.  This proposal is working in the *exact* opposite
> > direction and we'll never be able to get rid of device trees from
> > U-Boot, even if at some point they move out of the kernel to a
> > 'common' repo'.  I'll just repeat what I've been saying since v1.
> > Personally I'd be way happier if we could figure out were the specific
> > U-Boot config nodes are needed and when are they needed.  Based on
> > what we figure out we could, pick up the device tree from a previous
> > state bootloader and fix it up with our special nodes before we start
> > using it, using internal DTS files (compiled to .dtbos or similar)
> > that indeed belong in the u-boot tree.
>
> I don't think it makes sense to put stuff in the DT that is specific
> for U-Boot only to pull it out moments later.  Maybe it does make some
> sense to do this to pass information between TPL/SPL and U-Boot
> proper.  But otherwise you can just use global variables...
>
> Now I just ran into an issue on Apple M1 that may have some relevance
> here.  I'm adding support for power domains and the serial port
> requires certain power domains to be on.  Since the serial port is
> initialized in the pre-relocation phase this means that the device
> tree nodes for the power domain controllers need to have the
> "u-boot,dm-pre-reloc" property on them.  Otherwise the DM code won't
> be able to bind the power domain controller driver in this phase and
> binding the serial port driver itself will fail.  Which makes U-Boot
> hang without any visible output on the serial console.
>
> Does this hint at a bigger issue that DT shall be parsed and handled in
the U-Boot process way early than it is today?
Ilias reported a similar problem with TPM handling where you need to
discover TPM very early to deal with it.
There may be one early parse and two scans (one early, one normal
enumeration)


> Within the Asahi Linux group we're currently discussing how to solve
> this.  We could just add the "u-boot,dm-pre-reloc" properties in the
> device trees that we're going to distribute as part of m1n1 (the
> "bootloader" than embeds U-Boot).  Or we can write some code that adds
> those properties to the device tree nodes that are dependencies for
> the serial port.
>
> I don't think the suggestion of applying an overlay embedded in U-Boot
> would work here.  The code applying the overlay would need to run very
> early on in the pre-relocation phase.  We'd also have to include
> overlays for all the models that Apple offers and pick the right one.
> And if a new model appears we can no longer just add a new device tree
> to m1n1.
>
> But maybe there is a case where the overlay approach would make sense...
>


-- 
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Business Development*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog at linaro.org | Skype: ffozog