[PATCH 30/32] fdt: Allow the devicetree to come from a bloblist

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 05:48, Ilias Apalodimas
<ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 13:58, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ilias,
> >
> > On 9/11/23 09:56, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > Hi Michal,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 09:38, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 9/11/23 08:17, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > >>> Hi Simon,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 22:14, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Ilias,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at 03:31, Ilias Apalodimas
> > >>>> <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Simon,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Fri, 1 Sept 2023 at 18:51, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Ilias,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sept 2023 at 01:50, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [...]
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> +config OF_BLOBLIST
> > >>>>>>>>>> +     bool "DTB is provided by a bloblist"
> > >>>>>>>>>> +     help
> > >>>>>>>>>> +       Select this to read the devicetree from the bloblist. This allows
> > >>>>>>>>>> +       using a bloblist to transfer the devicetree between  U-Boot phases.
> > >>>>>>>>>> +       The devicetree is stored in the bloblist by an early phase so that
> > >>>>>>>>>> +       U-Boot can read it.
> > >>>>>>>>>> +
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I dont think this is a good idea.  We used to have 4-5 different options
> > >>>>>>>>> here, which we tried to clean up and ended up with two very discrete
> > >>>>>>>>> options.  Why do we have to reintroduce a new one?  Doesn't that bloblist
> > >>>>>>>>> have a header of some sort?  The bloblist literally comes from a previous
> > >>>>>>>>> stage bootloader which is what OF_BOARD is here for. So why can't we just
> > >>>>>>>>> read the header and figure out if the magic of the bloblist matches?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> No, OF_BOARD is a hack to allow boards to do what they like with the FDT.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> This patch is a standard mechanism to pass the DT from one firmware
> > >>>>>>>> phase to the next. We have spent quite a bit of time creating a spec
> > >>>>>>>> for it, and we should use it.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Where exactly am I objecting using the spec?   Can you please re-read my email?
> > >>>>>>> I am actually pointing out we should use the spec *properly*.  So
> > >>>>>>> instead of having a Kconfig option for the DT, which is pretty
> > >>>>>>> pointless,  we should parse the bloblist.  If the header defined by
> > >>>>>>> the *spec* is found, we should just search for the DT in there.
> > >>>>>>> What you are doing here, is take the spec, pick a very specific item
> > >>>>>>> that the list contains, and create a Kconfig option out of it.  Which
> > >>>>>>> basically ignores the discoverable options of the bloblist.  For
> > >>>>>>> example, that bloblist can also contain an entry to a TPM eventlog.
> > >>>>>>> Should we start creating Kconfig options for all the firmware handoff
> > >>>>>>> entries that are defined on that spec?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> OK so that is a different thing. What should it do if it expects to find a bloblist but cannot? I want it to throw an error, because I am trying to make the boot deterministic. What do you think?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That's fine by me.  You can even put that under IS_ENABLED for the
> > >>>>> bloblist inside the existing OF_BOARD check.  So I was thinking
> > >>>>> - If no bloblist is required in Kconfig options we do the hacks we used to
> > >>>>> - if bloblist is selected and the config option is OF_BOARD, throw an
> > >>>>> error and mention that the previous stage loader should hand over a DT
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Is that what you had in mind?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yes, that sounds good to me.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But I still think we need an OF_BLOBLIST option to control whether the
> > >>>> devicetree comes from there.
> > >>>>    Otherwise we will end up with people
> > >>>> using OF_BOARD to work around it. We also have the SPL case which does
> > >>>> not pass the DT in a bloblist...in fact SPL typically doesn't even
> > >>>> have the full DT.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wouldn't IS_ENABLED(BLOBLIST) || IS_ENABLED(SPL_BLOBLIST) be enough?
> > >>> Inside the OF_BOARD portion of the function, search for a bloblist if
> > >>> the option is enabled.  If you can't find a bloblist and the DT within
> > >>> that bloblist, then error out
> > >>
> > >> Just my 2c here.
> > >> I think all options should be possible to disable. It means I can imagine to
> > >> disable u-boot not to take care about DT provided from previous stage. The same
> > >> is for TPM event log. IMHO every stage should have an option to simply ignore
> > >> data pass from previous stage. I don't really mind how it is done but there
> > >> should be an option to by purpose say to ignore the part of pass data.
> > >
> > > That would be done by disabling BLOBLIST.  I don't think having a Kconfig to say
> > > "I want a bloblist, but I only want the DT from there" is reasonable
> > > (or for any other item the bloblist can carry).   OF_BOARD means the
> > > DT will come from a previous stage loader. If bloblist is enabled then
> > > the DT must come from there.
> >
> > I don't agree on this. If bloblist is enabled and DT is passed SW should have a
> > freedom to ignore it.
> >
> > At start everything is likely in sync but later stages before U-Boot can stay at
> > certain version but there could be a need to update u-boot where DT from
> > previous stage could be broken.
>
> But you *can* ignore it and load a different one later.  The only
> restriction is that if you compile u-boot with the assumption an early
> stage bootloader provides a DT you *must* find it.  But we will still
> just keep 2 options in U-Boot of how you get a DT.
> A previous loader provided it or U-Boot provided it.  Whether that
> comes from a bloblist or a register is irrelevant no ?

I'm not sure what is being requested here, so I'll leave this as is for v2.

The main struggle I have is how to tell whether you expect to
*receive* the DT in the bloblist, or expect it to be attached to the
image and be *sent* to the next phase.

SPL - attached to image, send in bloblist
U-Boot proper - not attached to image, receive it from bloblist

This is exactly the problem that is solved by the 'standard passage'
stuff [1] but that depends on Firmware Handoff and [2] which are not
ready yet...

So I think what I have is the best we can do for now.

Regards,
Simon

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=281465&state=*
[2] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=365719