[PATCH v3 4/8] dts: Add alternative location for upstream DTB builds
Tom Rini
trini at konsulko.com
Tue Jan 2 00:35:45 CET 2024
On Mon, Jan 01, 2024 at 03:32:41PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Mark, Tom,
>
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 5:33 PM Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 15:39:53 -0500
> > > From: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 07:28:52AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Sumit,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 8:30 AM Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 at 01:18, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 3:54 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 03:09:12PM +0000, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Tom, Sumit,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 2:03 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 01:37:26PM +0000, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Sumit,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 11:58 AM Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Allow platform owners to mirror devicetree files from devitree-rebasing
> > > > > > > > > > > directory into dts/arch/$(ARCH) (special case for dts/arch/arm64). Then
> > > > > > > > > > > build then along with any *-u-boot.dtsi file present in arch/$(ARCH)/dts
> > > > > > > > > > > directory. Also add a new Makefile for arm64.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This will help easy migration for platforms which currently are compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > with upstream Linux kernel devicetree files.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at linaro.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > > > > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > > > > > > - Minor commit message update
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > > > > > > - s/DEVICE_TREE_LOC/dt_dir/ and s/U-boot/U-Boot/
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > dts/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > > dts/Makefile | 17 ++++++++++++++---
> > > > > > > > > > > dts/arch/arm64/Makefile | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 dts/arch/arm64/Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/dts/Kconfig b/dts/Kconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > index 00c0aeff893..e58c1c6f2ab 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > --- a/dts/Kconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/dts/Kconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -85,6 +85,17 @@ config OF_LIVE
> > > > > > > > > > > enables a live tree which is available after relocation,
> > > > > > > > > > > and can be adjusted as needed.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +config OF_UPSTREAM
> > > > > > > > > > > + bool "Enable use of devicetree imported from Linux kernel release"
> > > > > > > > > > > + help
> > > > > > > > > > > + Traditionally, U-Boot platforms used to have their custom devicetree
> > > > > > > > > > > + files or copy devicetree files from Linux kernel which are hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > + maintain and can usually get out-of-sync from Linux kernel. This
> > > > > > > > > > > + option enables platforms to migrate to devicetree-rebasing repo where
> > > > > > > > > > > + a regular sync will be maintained every major Linux kernel release
> > > > > > > > > > > + cycle. However, platforms can still have some custom u-boot specific
> > > > > > > > > > > + bits maintained as part of *-u-boot.dtsi files.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My only other suggestion here is to mention that this should be set in
> > > > > > > > > > Kconfig, for the SoC as a whole. So I believe that means that it
> > > > > > > > > > should be hidden, with no string for the 'bool':
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > bool # Enable use of devicetree imported from Linux kernel release
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we can just keep prompting for it now, to make the transition
> > > > > > > > > easier, before this option just goes away in time, hopefully.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also, this doesn't seem to work for me. Before this series I get these
> > > > > > > > > > files when building firefly-rk3399:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-eaidk-610.dtb rk3399-khadas-edge-v.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-orangepi.dtb rk3399-rock-pi-4a.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-evb.dtb rk3399-leez-p710.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-pinebook-pro.dtb rk3399-rock-pi-4c.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-ficus.dtb rk3399-nanopc-t4.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-pinephone-pro.dtb rk3399-rockpro64.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-firefly.dtb rk3399-nanopi-m4-2gb.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399pro-rock-pi-n10.dtb rk3399-roc-pc.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-gru-bob.dtb rk3399-nanopi-m4b.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-puma-haikou.dtb rk3399-roc-pc-mezzanine.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-gru-kevin.dtb rk3399-nanopi-m4.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-rock-4c-plus.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-khadas-edge-captain.dtb rk3399-nanopi-neo4.dtb rk3399-rock-4se.dtb
> > > > > > > > > > rk3399-khadas-edge.dtb rk3399-nanopi-r4s.dtb rk3399-rock960.dtb
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Afterwards I get this:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > make[3]: *** No rule to make target
> > > > > > > > > > 'dts/arch/arm64/rk3399-firefly.dtb', needed by 'dtbs'. Stop.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So I set this manually for that one board:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE="rockchip/rk3399-firefly"
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and get:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > make[3]: *** No rule to make target
> > > > > > > > > > 'dts/arch/arm64/rockchip/rk3399-firefly.dtb', needed by 'dtbs'. Stop.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am not sure how to fix this, nor how this can be made to build all
> > > > > > > > > > the DTs for rk3399, as it does today.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Looking at the patch for amlogic boards, you need to make the link to
> > > > > > > > > devicetree-rebasing inside dts/...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OK, let me give up on rk3399 for now...that doesn't seem to work even
> > > > > > > > with the link.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Using odroid-c2 with -next I see:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > $ ls /tmp/b/odroid-c2/arch/arm/dts/
> > > > > > > > meson-a1-ad401.dtb meson-g12b-odroid-n2l.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-gxl-s905x-libretech-cc.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-axg-jethome-jethub-j100.dtb meson-g12b-odroid-n2-plus.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-gxl-s905x-libretech-cc-v2.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-axg-s400.dtb meson-g12b-radxa-zero2.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-gxl-s905x-p212.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12a-radxa-zero.dtb meson-gxbb-kii-pro.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-gxm-gt1-ultimate.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12a-sei510.dtb meson-gxbb-nanopi-k2.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-gxm-khadas-vim2.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12a-u200.dtb meson-gxbb-odroidc2.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-gxm-s912-libretech-pc.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12b-a311d-bananapi-m2s.dtb meson-gxbb-p200.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-gxm-wetek-core2.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12b-a311d-khadas-vim3.dtb meson-gxbb-p201.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-sm1-bananapi-m2-pro.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12b-bananapi-cm4-cm4io.dtb meson-gxbb-wetek-hub.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-sm1-bananapi-m5.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12b-gsking-x.dtb meson-gxbb-wetek-play2.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-sm1-khadas-vim3l.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12b-gtking.dtb meson-gxl-s805x-libretech-ac.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-sm1-odroid-c4.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12b-gtking-pro.dtb meson-gxl-s905d-libretech-pc.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-sm1-odroid-hc4.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12b-odroid-go-ultra.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-gxl-s905w-jethome-jethub-j80.dtb meson-sm1-sei610.dtb
> > > > > > > > meson-g12b-odroid-n2.dtb meson-gxl-s905x-khadas-vim.dtb
> > > > > > > > $
> > > > > > > > With this series (sort of, since I am really not sure how to
> > > > > > > > cherry-pick the commits from the PR) I see nothing:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > $ ls /tmp/b/odroid-c2/arch/arm/dts/
> > > > > > > > $
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This shows some of the files:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > $ find /tmp/b/odroid-c2/ -name "*.dtb"
> > > > > > > > /tmp/b/odroid-c2/dts/dt.dtb
> > > > > > > > /tmp/b/odroid-c2/dts/arch/arm64/amlogic/meson-gxbb-odroidc2.dtb
> > > > > > > > /tmp/b/odroid-c2/dts/arch/arm64/amlogic/meson-gxbb-nanopi-k2.dtb
> > > > > > > > /tmp/b/odroid-c2/dts/arch/arm64/amlogic/meson-gxbb-wetek-play2.dtb
> > > > > > > > /tmp/b/odroid-c2/dts/arch/arm64/amlogic/meson-gxbb-kii-pro.dtb
> > > > > > > > /tmp/b/odroid-c2/dts/arch/arm64/amlogic/meson-gxbb-p200.dtb
> > > > > > > > /tmp/b/odroid-c2/dts/arch/arm64/amlogic/meson-gxbb-p201.dtb
> > > > > > > > /tmp/b/odroid-c2/dts/arch/arm64/amlogic/meson-gxbb-wetek-hub.dtb
> > > > > > > > /tmp/b/odroid-c2/u-boot.dtb
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but where are the rest? Also, is it possible to put the output .dtb
> > > > > > > > files into the same directory? Otherwise we may have some pain with
> > > > > > > > binman.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you mean by same directory? But maybe also, what's an example of
> > > > > > > a board you think might end up having problems? Converting that in a
> > > > > > > follow-up series is likely a good idea, to highlight and address these
> > > > > > > issues sooner rather than later.#
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today the .dtb files go into arch/arm/dts - so it would be easier if
> > > > > > this series could do the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > The kbuild infrastructure keeps the dtb alongside dts files which is
> > > > > the preferred way too as otherwise it would be complicated to locate
> > > > > DT files for the users. Also, we have to move towards Linux DT
> > > > > directory structure and thereby the tools like binman have to be
> > > > > adjusted. I will do that when I get to migrating SoCs supporting
> > > > > binman.
> > > >
> > > > OK, I want to stop here and rethink this. This is the path taken so
> > > > far, I believe:
> > > >
> > > > 1. We want to use devicetree files taken from Linux and
> > > > devicetree-rebasing provides these
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > 2. We want to use 'git subtree' to avoid needing a script to do the
> > > > sync / create a commit
> > >
> > > No. We want to use 'git subtree' to avoid having to use git submodules.
>
> Well that is what I understood from Sumit, when I asked about a
> script. I imagine a 100-line Python script could do the same as:
>
> git subtree pull --prefix devicetree-rebasing
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git
> <release-tag> --squash
>
> and it could also put the files in the right place for U-Boot.
I've been saying in various places for years that I want to move away
from arch/*/dts being where we have the "just a copy" dts files and have
them somewhere else so they are easier to manage and differentiate our
changes / additions. So arch/*/dts cannot be some hard-coded "right"
path.
> > > > 3. But this leaves us with a directory structure which doesn't match
> > > > U-Boot (no script to fix it up)
> > >
> > > No. We intentionally abandon arch/*/dts because it's so full of
> > > out of date files and never fully re-synced, only re-synced ad-hoc.
>
> I mean that the dir structure doesn't match. I am not worried about
> keeping arch/*/dts but I want the same structure somewhere else, e.g.
> dtr/arch/*/dts
And what I want here is to match the same structure everyone that's not
U-Boot uses. For better or worse no one else seems to have gone with
"treat aarch64 as just another ARM", and then the vendor directory
structure only makes that more obviously a mismatch. We need to follow
what everyone else uses, and developers familiar with other projects
will expect to see.
> > > > 4. So we deal with that by skipping the build rules and using CONFIG
> > > > options to select what is built
> > > > 5. So now we cannot build all the files for an SoC, just the ones that
> > > > are in the CONFIG options
> > > > 6. Linux doesn't actually use devicetree-rebasing itself, so doesn't
> > > > have this problem
> > >
> > > No. devicetree-rebasing skips the Makefiles because they're part of the
> > > kernel. We couldn't re-use them ourselves because we don't have the same
> > > CONFIG names the kernel does. And Sumit has not replicated the logic we
> > > have under arch/*/dts/Makefile today because I've asked him not to, and
> > > we'll figure out what subsets of that logic make sense to add back in as
> > > a second step not a first step.
>
> Again, you are missing my point. I am not suggesting using Linux's
> build rules, just explaining why Linux doesn't have the problem we
> would be creating here.
>
> > > > So this is heading in the wrong direction. Nor is it clear that this
> > > > would just be a temporary problem.
> > >
> > > A previous iteration of this series built all of the dtb files for the
> > > SoC that Sumit has migrated with this series, but then dropped it.
>
> Oh.
>
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > I would like to do this series properly, maintaining the SoC-specific
> > > > build rules, not removing what I see as an important feature. It
> > > > should not be that difficult to figure out and I am happy to help with
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > The problem is that the rest of us do not understand the use case you're
> > > describing where a dtb file that would be useful in a build is not
> > > already in the list to build. The only one of those use cases I
> > > understand thus far is the exynos4 (iirc) case you mentioned previously
> > > where yes, really, one defconfig + appending board.dtb is fine, or fine
> > > enough. It's not that far off of the SPL_LOAD_FIT case, but there we
> > > know what to build already.
>
> Perhaps the problem is that the rest of you think of the build as all
> happening in U-Boot, similar to the proposed 'make image.fit' that I
> am trying to add to Linux.
>
> But packaging can be (and often is) a separate step from building.
> Linux has no packaging mechanism today...it just builds everything
> (including all DTs) and stops.
>
> We should be able to pick up whatever .dtb files we want and use them
> in an image.
>
> > > And I guess trying to tie things up, that's my puzzle. SPL_LOAD_FIT is
> > > how I see the use case you talk about being solved, if a full U-Boot is
> > > generic enough for N boards, SPL_LOAD_FIT does the right thing (in this
> > > non-bloblist DTB, non-reusing-OS-inntended DTB world). I really don't
> > > knnow how many modern SoCs can take a literal concatenated DTB and even
> > > in those cases I don't get why that's the win we want now? 1 build to N
> > > binaries?
>
> Yes SPL_LOAD_FIT is fine although in practice we will likely need SPL
> to use the correct DT as well, so the DT will need to be determined in
> TPL, perhaps.
I mean, SPL_LOAD_FIT still can handle this case, with a call to the
function to re-parse the tree, when needed. I thought we did this today
even, but perhaps I'm confusing my options here.
> But anyway, this works OK with rk3399, for example. We need to support
> this use case.
>
> Also, it is pretty easy. We just need to stick with the dir structure
> we have today and copy our existing Makefiles into that dir. Or change
> to the kernel dir structure and use that. Or do one, then the other.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what directory structure has to do with
"build more dtbs". For the cases where it makes sense to, yes, we can
build more dtbs, based on the SoC. I'm setting aside entirely the
discussion on what SoCs that works for, for another thread.
Perhaps an issue here is that much like the kernel "install" target, we
need an "install" target too, so that whatever dtbs we build can be
more easily found for external packaging, but whatever tooling it is
that wants it? And perhaps this is part of the problem, tooling that
expects to pull things out of the object directory rather than an
"installed" directory?
> > > But even then, I don't object to adding those rules to the Makefiles. If
> > > it works it works. I object to adding them when they don't work.
>
> What do you mean by 'work'? With this series as is, it simply isn't
> possible to add Makefile rules, as they are ignored. Am I missing
> something?
Yes, I think you're missing something. Perhaps you need to publish a WIP
tree somewhere so someone can see what you're doing as it sounds like
you're not able to add another SoC of any type on top of Sumit's tree
and have it work.
--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20240101/3eae773f/attachment.sig>
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list