[PATCH v3 3/4] board: starfive: spl: strip off 'starfive/' prefix

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

On 2/23/25 15:18, E Shattow wrote:
> 
> On 2/23/25 04:55, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>> On 2/23/25 02:33, E Shattow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/21/25 01:58, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>>> The configuration descriptions generated by binman contain the vendor
>>>> device-tree directory. Instead of adding it to all match strings just
>>>> strip
>>>> it off.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Leo Yu-Chi Liang <ycliang at andestech.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v3:
>>>>      no change
>>>> v2:
>>>>      no change
>>>> ---
>>>>    board/starfive/visionfive2/spl.c | 4 ++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/board/starfive/visionfive2/spl.c b/board/starfive/
>>>> visionfive2/spl.c
>>>> index 22afd76c6b9..d63eb1abe6a 100644
>>>> --- a/board/starfive/visionfive2/spl.c
>>>> +++ b/board/starfive/visionfive2/spl.c
>>>> @@ -118,6 +118,10 @@ int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name)
>>>>          product_id = get_product_id_from_eeprom();
>>>>    +    /* Strip off prefix */
>>>> +    if (strncmp(name, "starfive/", 9))
>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>> +    name += 9;
>>>>        if (!strncmp(product_id, "VF7110", 6)) {
>>>>            version = get_pcb_revision_from_eeprom();
>>>>            if ((version == 'b' || version == 'B') &&
>>>
>>> Let's insist on logic statements in board_fit_config_name_match()
>>> callback that begin with literal items (no pointer math trickery) from
>>> configs/starfive_visionfive2_defconfig:CONFIG_OF_LIST and in that order:
>>
>> Thank you for reviewing.
>>
>> Unfortunately your sentence starting with "Let's insist" does not
>> provide insight into your reasoning.
>>
> 
> On first sight I do not like "code golf" of pointer math on the function
> parameter in-place. It seems to be okay here but does get my attention
> to look closer.
> 
> On closer look what I do want to see is 1:1 continuity between what is
> in configs/starfive_visionfive2_defconfig:CONFIG_OF_LIST and the overall
> form of this logic block so that it is uncomplicated to add more
> variants to this board target. We assume there is a pattern "starfive/"
> here but there is no such thing, this is wrong to do that. The
> originating list in the Makefile may contain literals that do not have a
> "starfive/" prefix.
> 
>> Why do you want to add the 'starfive/' to each of the strings we compare
>> instead of checking the common prefix first and the remainder next which
>> results in a smaller binary?
> 
> What are the limits on binary size, here? How important is the need to
> create this assumption of "starfive/" prefix?
> 
>>
>>>
>>> #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(LOAD_FIT)
>>> int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name)
>>> {
>>>      if(!strcmp(name, "starfive/jh7110-milkv-mars") &&
>>>         !strncmp(get_product_id_from_eeprom(), "MARS", 4)) {
>>>          return 0;
>>>      } else if((!strcmp(name, "starfive/jh7110-pine64-star64")) &&
>>>         !strncmp(get_product_id_from_eeprom(), "STAR64", 6)) {
>>>          return 0;
>>>      } else if((!strcmp(name, "starfive/jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2-
>>> v1.2a")) &&
>>>         !strncmp(get_product_id_from_eeprom(), "VF7110", 6)) {
>>>          switch (get_pcb_revision_from_eeprom()) {
>>>          case 'a':
>>>          case 'A':
>>>              return 0;
>>>          }
>>>      } else if((!strcmp(name, "starfive/jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2-
>>> v1.2b")) &&
>>>         !strncmp(get_product_id_from_eeprom(), "VF7110", 6)) {
>>>          switch (get_pcb_revision_from_eeprom()) {
>>>          case 'b':
>>>          case 'B':
>>>              return 0;
>>>          }
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> Not sure about code style so that is simply an example of keeping the
>>> sort order the same as how it exists in
>>> configs/starfive_visionfive2_defconfig:CONFIG_OF_LIST
>>>
>>> Mars CM (and CM Lite) logic may be dropped since those targets do not
>>> exist at the moment in starfive_visionfive2_defconfig:CONFIG_OF_LIST
>>> however, I do anticipate to submit for review into Linux upstream soon
>>> and to begin that process. A donation board was sent to me so I now have
>>> Mars CM to test as well as Mars CM Lite.
>>
>> As you are planning to upstream the boards I suggest to keep those
>> lines. You could already use them by manually copying the device-trees
>> into the upstream dtb folder and adding the files to CONFIG_OF_LIST.
> 
> Yes, this dead code can be some removed with other cleanup, it does not
> have to be this series.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Are the duplicate string definitions and logic in
>>> board/starfive/visionfive2/starfive_visionfive2.c:set_fdtfile() etc.
>>> still appropriate, could those now be factored out? I think Simon's
>>> suggestion (in reply on IRC) of CONFIG_FIT_BEST_MATCH could replace that
>>> functionality? -E
>>
>> $fdtfile is used for loading a device-tree from the ESP. I can't see how
>> CONFIG_FIT_BEST_MATCH which controls choosing FIT configurations is
>> related. We cannot set $fdtfile from SPL.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Heinrich
> 
> I've now tested CONFIG_FIT_BEST_MATCH and it works as suggested:
> 
> --- a/configs/starfive_visionfive2_defconfig
> +++ b/configs/starfive_visionfive2_defconfig
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ CONFIG_RISCV_SMODE=y
>   # CONFIG_OF_BOARD_FIXUP is not set
>   # CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_CLEAR_ON_INIT is not set
>   CONFIG_FIT=y
> +CONFIG_FIT_BEST_MATCH=y
>   CONFIG_BOOTSTD_DEFAULTS=y
>   CONFIG_BOOTSTAGE=y
>   CONFIG_QSPI_BOOT=y
> 
> also delete function
> board/starfive/visionfive2/starfive_visionfive2.c:set_fdtfile() and
> where it is called from within board_late_init(). Then $fdtfile is set
> not defined so the best fit is selected, or, if $fdtfile is user-defined
> then the user-defined path is loaded (same as before). The difference is
> there is not any $fdtfile env variable defined for the typical situation
> but it does apparently have some kind of heuristic and loads something

 From what you write above I take that variable $fdtfile has not been set.

Have you successfully booted using the EFI boot manager and verified 
that it is picking up the correct device-tree from the ESP and not the 
one from u-boot.itb?

I wouldn't know how that should work as in the EFI boot manager we rely 
on environment variable $fdtfile:

lib/efi_loader/efi_fdt.c:55:
     fdt_fname = env_get("fdtfile");

Best regards

Heinrich

> appropriate, I am not sure if it is from U-Boot or if it is from the
> search path. This makes sense to me since we're OF_UPSTREAM now. Anyhow
> we can drop a lot of unnecessary duplicate logic and code this way. That
> change could as part of this series or as a follow-up.
>