[PATCH v2 4/5] watchdog: rti_wdt: Add support for loading firmware

[Simon Glass]

Hi Jan,

On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 12:01, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> wrote:
>
> On 26.06.21 20:29, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 08:08, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 07:14:21PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> >>> Hi Tom,
> >>>
> >>> On 09/06/21 6:47 pm, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> On 07.06.21 13:44, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>>> On 07.06.21 13:40, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 03:33:52PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> >>>>>>> +Tom,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Tom,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 02/06/21 3:07 pm, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To avoid the need of extra boot scripting on AM65x for loading a
> >>>>>>>> watchdog firmware, add the required rproc init and loading logic for the
> >>>>>>>> first R5F core to the watchdog start handler. In case the R5F cluster is
> >>>>>>>> in lock-step mode, also initialize the second core. The firmware itself
> >>>>>>>> is embedded into U-Boot binary to ease access to it and ensure it is
> >>>>>>>> properly hashed in case of secure boot.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> One possible firmware source is https://github.com/siemens/k3-rti-wdt.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>  drivers/watchdog/Kconfig      | 20 ++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>  drivers/watchdog/Makefile     |  5 +++
> >>>>>>>>  drivers/watchdog/rti_wdt.c    | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>>>>>>  drivers/watchdog/rti_wdt_fw.S | 20 ++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>  4 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/watchdog/rti_wdt_fw.S
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
> >>>>>>>> index f0ff2612a6..1a1fddfe9f 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
> >>>>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,26 @@ config WDT_K3_RTI
> >>>>>>>>           Say Y here if you want to include support for the K3 watchdog
> >>>>>>>>           timer (RTI module) available in the K3 generation of processors.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +if WDT_K3_RTI
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +config WDT_K3_RTI_LOAD_FW
> >>>>>>>> +       bool "Load watchdog firmware"
> >>>>>>>> +       depends on REMOTEPROC
> >>>>>>>> +       help
> >>>>>>>> +         Automatically load the specified firmware image into the MCU R5F
> >>>>>>>> +         core 0. On the AM65x, this firmware is supposed to handle the expiry
> >>>>>>>> +         of the watchdog timer, typically by resetting the system.
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +config WDT_K3_RTI_FW_FILE
> >>>>>>>> +       string "Watchdog firmware image file"
> >>>>>>>> +       default "k3-rti-wdt.fw"
> >>>>>>>> +       depends on WDT_K3_RTI_LOAD_FW
> >>>>>>>> +       help
> >>>>>>>> +         Firmware image to be embedded into U-Boot and loaded on watchdog
> >>>>>>>> +         start.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I need your input on this proach. Is it okay to include the linker file unders
> >>>>>>> drivers?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Maybe?  I suppose the first thing that springs to mind is why aren't we
> >>>>>> using binman and including this blob (which I happily see is GPLv2)
> >>>>>> similar to how we do things with x86 for one example.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg377894.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jan
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Did this help to answer open questions? Otherwise, please let me know.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd also like to avoid that his patch alone blocks 1-3 of the series
> >>>> needless - but I would also not mind getting everything in at once.
> >>>
> >>> Can you provide your reviewed-by if you are okay with this approach?
> >>
> >> I was kind of hoping Simon would chime in here on binman usage.  So,
> >> re-re-reading the above URL, yes, fsloader wouldn't be the right choice
> >> for watchdog firmware.  But I think binman_entry_find() and related
> >> could work, in general, for this case of "need firmware blob embedded in
> >> to image".  That said, this isn't just any firmware blob, it's the
> >> watchdog firmware.  The less reliance on other things the safer it is.
> >> That means this would be an exception to the general firmware blob
> >> loading rule and yeah, OK, we can do it this way.  Sorry for the delay.
> >
> > Yes I've been a little tied up recently. But I think this should use
> > binman. We really don't want to be building binary firmware into
> > U-Boot itself!
> >
> > Also Tom says, see x86 for a load of binaries of different types and
> > how they are accessed at runttime. This is what binman is for.
> >
>
> Please take the time and study my arguments. I'm open for better
> proposals, but they need to be concrete and addressing my points.

Do you mean 'properly hashed' and 'easy access', or something else?
What can binman not do?

Regards,
Simon