[RFC PATCH] zynqmp: Add binman description for SOM

[Michal Simek]

Hi Simon,

On 12/6/24 20:17, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 01:32, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On 11/2/24 17:28, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Michal,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 14:52, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 02:09:38PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/1/24 09:27, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/31/24 19:03, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Michal,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 at 10:33, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is necessary to do some steps to compose boot images. These steps
>>>>>>>> were in scripts in layers for a while. That's why introduce description via
>>>>>>>> binman to simplify wiring and remove all scripting around.
>>>>>>>> This should make sure that everybody is up2date with the latest versions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first step is to create fit image with DTBs with descriptions in
>>>>>>>> configuration node which is written as regular expression to match all SOM
>>>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>>> Description is there for k24 and k26 in spite of low level psu_init
>>>>>>>> configuration is different. The reason is that it goes to u-boot.itb image
>>>>>>>> which is the same for k24 and k26.
>>>>>>>> u-boot.itb is another image which is generated. It is normally generated
>>>>>>>> via arch/arm/mach-zynqmp/mkimage_fit_atf.sh but this script is supposed to
>>>>>>>> be deprecated.
>>>>>>>> FIT image by purpose is using 64bit addresses to have default option to
>>>>>>>> move images to high DDR (above 4GB). TF-A and TEE are optional components
>>>>>>>> but in the most cases TF-A is present all the time and TEE(OP-TEE) is used
>>>>>>>> by some configurations too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3rd generated image is boot.bin with updated user field which contains
>>>>>>>> version number. This image can be used with updated Image Selector
>>>>>>>> which supports A/B update mechanisms with rollback protection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4th image is image.bin which binary file which contains boot.bin and
>>>>>>>> u-boot.itb together and can be programmed via origin Image Selector.
>>>>>>>> This image can be also used for creating one capsule which contains both
>>>>>>>> boot images (in SPL boot flow).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently I have this for testing purpose only to find missing bits and
>>>>>>>> pieces in binman for cases I want to support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This patch depends on
>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/ fbed0251437b61a2f7a85596d7403b5b9c8237c1.1728306322.git.michal.simek at amd.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>     arch/arm/dts/Makefile                |   1 +
>>>>>>>>     arch/arm/dts/zynqmp-som-binman.dts   | 224 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>     arch/arm/mach-zynqmp/Kconfig         |  17 ++
>>>>>>>>     configs/xilinx_zynqmp_kria_defconfig |   2 +
>>>>>>>>     4 files changed, 244 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>     create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/zynqmp-som-binman.dts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm pleased to see this. My only suggestion is to use '/bits/ 64'
>>>>>>> instead of the macros, for 64-bit values.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I was playing with it some time ago it didn't work but it works now
>>>>>> that's why no issue with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> One more thing on this one. I pretty much dislike that images are generated
>>>>> to u-boot root folder. Isn't there a way that they will be written to
>>>>> separate folder (deploy for example)?
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps $(obj) ?
>>>
>>> Yes $(obj) is where they end up today. I consider output files from
>>> binman to be on the same level as other files created by the build.
>>> Then again, it does end up a bit of a mess, when mixed with the output
>>> files.
>>
>> Some cleanup would be good. I remember a lot of discussion about if people
>> should be using u-boot or u-boot.elf. Answer was simple but if output images are
>> in separate folder it would IMHO better to understand.
>>
>>> I am not keen on 'deploy' as it nothing is being deployed - also it
>>> sounds like a satellite or military attack.
>>
>> No problem with different name.
>>
>>>
>>> One long-standing issue is that intermediate files are created in the
>>> same directory. Perhaps we could put those in a binman-tmp directory?
>>> They are necessary when things go wrong, but don't need to be used all
>>> the time.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> But I think we should try to move also that images which users should be using
>> to separate folder completely. Again it doesn't need to be done by default but a
>> way to configure it would be good.
> 
> Perhaps file an issue for this? I haven't got to it yet.

File through what? Do we have any task list somewhere?

Thanks,
Michal