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

Thu Dec 2 23:42:18 CET 2021

Hi Tom,

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 14:53, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 12:24:24PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 12:22, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:53:53 -0700
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mark,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 11:47, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:21:22 -0700
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mark,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 11:15, 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well put.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But maybe there is a case where the overlay approach would make sense...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There might be, but I haven't found it yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW I suggest we figure out how to upstream the binding for this. I
> > > > > > will see if I can send a patch to start the process. The last patch
> > > > > > didn't get any comments though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the interim there is probably no choice but to add the properties
> > > > > > into the m1n1 project. Of course, for development, you could just turn
> > > > > > off OF_BOARD, with my series applied. Which is a lot of the point of
> > > > > > all of this discussion...
> > > > >
> > > > > And that is exactly why I don't see the point of this series.  There
> > > > > is no chance of that working.  The device tree that is currently in
> > > > > the U-Boot tree (essentially because you made me add one) is only a
> > > > > template that gets modified by m1n1 to account for hardware
> > > > > characteristics (amount of memory, cores that are actually enabled,
> > > > > MAC addresses, WiFi antenna configuration, etc. etc.).  If I flip
> > > > > OF_BOARD U-Boot would simply not work.
>
> I read this as Mark saying he builds the dtb file for U-Boot as well as
> Linux out of tree, and feeds those two files to m1n1.  m1n1 is
> responsible for taking the dtb and adjusting as needed, and handing
> along to U-Boot.
>
> > > > > The way I do development is that I simply build a device tree, build
> > > > > U-boot and upload them over serial to m1n1 running on the device.  I
> > > > > currently do build my device trees out of the U-Boot tree, but the
> > > > > main reason for that is because the Linux development model means that
> > > > > too many of the device tree patches are still in flight.  I often use
> > > > > the device tree from a different U-Boot repository clone than the one
> > > > > I do the actual U-Boot development in anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Yes and I think you have made my point. That is all I am saying. I am
> > > > not claiming that U-Boot needs to be the golden repo for the .dts,
> > > > just that it should have something suitable that works well enough for
> > > > development, and can be modified and updated as development
> > > > progresses.
> > >
> > > No you are missing my point.  I'm only doing it this way because the
> > > Linux development model is so broken that it takes months for patches
> > > posted on the mailing list to end up in a somewhat official source
> > > tree and I would go bat-shit crazy having to deal with all the merges
> > > and rebasing going on.
> > >
> > > If there was a separate device tree project, I would very much prefer
> > > to use that and make device tree changes there such that I could
> > > submit any additions to the canonical sources.  I'm currently spending
> > > too much of my development time synching the device trees in my U-Boot
> > > tree with what's going on on the Linux side.
> >
> > Right, exactly. I have exactly the same problem and so do other people
> > working with U-Boot. At least we have a work-around.
>
> I'm confused.  I read this as Mark says "I need to solve this problem
> for all users, I can't compile the device tree in to U-Boot as it will
> be wrong" and then Simon says "Yes, compile in the device tree for all
> users, that's what my series brings us".

No I just mean, that for development, U-Boot is a nice place to build
and include the DT, that's all. Mark is pointing out a workflow issue
that I have had as well, in spades. It is useful to be able to modify
the DT and have it be built by U-Boot. I did exactly the same thing
when testing with m1n1. I'm not suggesting anything else. This is a
storm in a teacup.

The only reason DT has served U-Boot over all these years is that we
have had control of it. Do you honestly think driver model would have
worked without that? of-platdata? What about binman?

I'm not giving it up until we have our bindings upstream and the DTs
are discoverable and automatically downloadable as part of a build.
The OF_PRIOR_STAGE thing should never have happened while we are in
this precarious state. We need a way to keep control until we have
things sorted out. If nothing else, it should help get the support of
the people on these threads for getting bindings agreed. At least from
what I can tell, the people who said we couldn't have U-Boot
properties in the DT are quieter these days. Let's see if that
continues.

Regards,
Simon