[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Joel A Fernandes]

Hello,
I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
in the kernel.
With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
dtbs, as it is a nice way

Currently the following is what I envision the way it will work:
- New "uImage-fit" target in $(boot)/ which is made to depend on "dtbs" target
- Changes to dtbs target to output a $(srctree)/.tmp_list_dtbs listing
the full paths to all the dtbs built
- A new script "mkfitsrc.sh" that spits out an ITS to
$(srctree)/.tmp_its . The above tmp file is passed
   - For each dtb, a new "device tree" node is created in the ITS
   - For each dtb, a new "configuration" node is created in the ITS
- mkimage is called on the ITS sources to output the kernel image.
(TODO: to use mkuboot.sh)

I have yet to do some boot time tests, as I don't have my board now
and don't want to post something that doesn't work. But all this has
been build-tested.

Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
mkuboot.sh?

Regards,
Joel

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Joel A Fernandes]

Hello,
I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
in the kernel.
With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
dtbs, as it is a nice way

Currently the following is what I envision the way it will work:
- New "uImage-fit" target in $(boot)/ which is made to depend on "dtbs" target
- Changes to dtbs target to output a $(srctree)/.tmp_list_dtbs listing
the full paths to all the dtbs built
- A new script "mkfitsrc.sh" that spits out an ITS to
$(srctree)/.tmp_its . The above tmp file is passed
   - For each dtb, a new "device tree" node is created in the ITS
   - For each dtb, a new "configuration" node is created in the ITS
- mkimage is called on the ITS sources to output the kernel image.
(TODO: to use mkuboot.sh)

I have yet to do some boot time tests, as I don't have my board now
and don't want to post something that doesn't work. But all this has
been build-tested.

Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
mkuboot.sh?

Regards,
Joel

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Joel A Fernandes]

Hello,
I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
in the kernel.
With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
dtbs, as it is a nice way

Currently the following is what I envision the way it will work:
- New "uImage-fit" target in $(boot)/ which is made to depend on "dtbs" target
- Changes to dtbs target to output a $(srctree)/.tmp_list_dtbs listing
the full paths to all the dtbs built
- A new script "mkfitsrc.sh" that spits out an ITS to
$(srctree)/.tmp_its . The above tmp file is passed
   - For each dtb, a new "device tree" node is created in the ITS
   - For each dtb, a new "configuration" node is created in the ITS
- mkimage is called on the ITS sources to output the kernel image.
(TODO: to use mkuboot.sh)

I have yet to do some boot time tests, as I don't have my board now
and don't want to post something that doesn't work. But all this has
been build-tested.

Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
mkuboot.sh?

Regards,
Joel

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hello,
> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
> in the kernel.
> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
> dtbs, as it is a nice way

To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to
create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.

All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files into
/boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by constructing the
filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then use the bootz command to
boot it. You can have a completely generic boot.scr (or built-in script).

Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need to flash
a new U-Boot to support FIT, so you may as well just flash a new U-Boot
that implements the ${soc} and ${board} variables instead. IIRC, there
may also be a ${boardname} or similar that's like ${board}, but
represents the runtime-detected board for when one U-Boot build actually
supports multiple different boards.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hello,
> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
> in the kernel.
> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
> dtbs, as it is a nice way

To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to
create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.

All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files into
/boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by constructing the
filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then use the bootz command to
boot it. You can have a completely generic boot.scr (or built-in script).

Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need to flash
a new U-Boot to support FIT, so you may as well just flash a new U-Boot
that implements the ${soc} and ${board} variables instead. IIRC, there
may also be a ${boardname} or similar that's like ${board}, but
represents the runtime-detected board for when one U-Boot build actually
supports multiple different boards.

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hello,
> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
> in the kernel.
> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
> dtbs, as it is a nice way

To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to
create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.

All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files into
/boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by constructing the
filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then use the bootz command to
boot it. You can have a completely generic boot.scr (or built-in script).

Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need to flash
a new U-Boot to support FIT, so you may as well just flash a new U-Boot
that implements the ${soc} and ${board} variables instead. IIRC, there
may also be a ${boardname} or similar that's like ${board}, but
represents the runtime-detected board for when one U-Boot build actually
supports multiple different boards.

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Joel A Fernandes]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>> in the kernel.
>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>
> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to

I don't think so, there are many usecases for FIT and cleanly
embedding DTBs is a common usecase, (along with stronger checksums,
compression). That is also the basis of my ELC talk tomorrow morning
;-)
You could peruse the slides at, http://wwwelinux.org/Fit-boot to get a
better understanding of what FIT solves. With the move to
multiplatform kernels, it is quite a logical next step to add this
support to the kernel build.

> create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
> would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.

As for pulling additional tools, dtc is already a part of the kernel
so the idea is to use existing tools.

> All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files into
> /boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by constructing the
> filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then use the bootz command to
> boot it. You can have a completely generic boot.scr (or built-in script).

FIT doesnt need any such bootloader variables and thus benefits from
the simplicity.

> Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need to flash

For these boards, we can special case to doing a non-fit boot to keep
them backward-compatibility. I don't think maintaining
backward-compatibility requires any additional work, but just building
the kernel with a different make target.

Regards,
Joel

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Joel A Fernandes]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>> in the kernel.
>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>
> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to

I don't think so, there are many usecases for FIT and cleanly
embedding DTBs is a common usecase, (along with stronger checksums,
compression). That is also the basis of my ELC talk tomorrow morning
;-)
You could peruse the slides at, http://wwwelinux.org/Fit-boot to get a
better understanding of what FIT solves. With the move to
multiplatform kernels, it is quite a logical next step to add this
support to the kernel build.

> create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
> would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.

As for pulling additional tools, dtc is already a part of the kernel
so the idea is to use existing tools.

> All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files into
> /boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by constructing the
> filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then use the bootz command to
> boot it. You can have a completely generic boot.scr (or built-in script).

FIT doesnt need any such bootloader variables and thus benefits from
the simplicity.

> Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need to flash

For these boards, we can special case to doing a non-fit boot to keep
them backward-compatibility. I don't think maintaining
backward-compatibility requires any additional work, but just building
the kernel with a different make target.

Regards,
Joel

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Joel A Fernandes]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>> in the kernel.
>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>
> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to

I don't think so, there are many usecases for FIT and cleanly
embedding DTBs is a common usecase, (along with stronger checksums,
compression). That is also the basis of my ELC talk tomorrow morning
;-)
You could peruse the slides at, http://wwwelinux.org/Fit-boot to get a
better understanding of what FIT solves. With the move to
multiplatform kernels, it is quite a logical next step to add this
support to the kernel build.

> create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
> would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.

As for pulling additional tools, dtc is already a part of the kernel
so the idea is to use existing tools.

> All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files into
> /boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by constructing the
> filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then use the bootz command to
> boot it. You can have a completely generic boot.scr (or built-in script).

FIT doesnt need any such bootloader variables and thus benefits from
the simplicity.

> Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need to flash

For these boards, we can special case to doing a non-fit boot to keep
them backward-compatibility. I don't think maintaining
backward-compatibility requires any additional work, but just building
the kernel with a different make target.

Regards,
Joel

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 12:15 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>>> in the kernel.
>>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>>
>> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to
> 
> I don't think so, there are many usecases for FIT and cleanly
> embedding DTBs is a common usecase, (along with stronger checksums,
> compression). That is also the basis of my ELC talk tomorrow morning
> ;-)
> You could peruse the slides at, http://wwwelinux.org/Fit-boot to get a
> better understanding of what FIT solves. With the move to
> multiplatform kernels, it is quite a logical next step to add this
> support to the kernel build.
> 
>> create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
>> would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.
> 
> As for pulling additional tools, dtc is already a part of the kernel
> so the idea is to use existing tools.

Well, dtc won't be part of the kernel build process for ARM at least
once the device tree files are move outside the kernel.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 12:15 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>>> in the kernel.
>>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>>
>> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to
> 
> I don't think so, there are many usecases for FIT and cleanly
> embedding DTBs is a common usecase, (along with stronger checksums,
> compression). That is also the basis of my ELC talk tomorrow morning
> ;-)
> You could peruse the slides at, http://wwwelinux.org/Fit-boot to get a
> better understanding of what FIT solves. With the move to
> multiplatform kernels, it is quite a logical next step to add this
> support to the kernel build.
> 
>> create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
>> would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.
> 
> As for pulling additional tools, dtc is already a part of the kernel
> so the idea is to use existing tools.

Well, dtc won't be part of the kernel build process for ARM at least
once the device tree files are move outside the kernel.

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 12:15 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>>> in the kernel.
>>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>>
>> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to
> 
> I don't think so, there are many usecases for FIT and cleanly
> embedding DTBs is a common usecase, (along with stronger checksums,
> compression). That is also the basis of my ELC talk tomorrow morning
> ;-)
> You could peruse the slides at, http://wwwelinux.org/Fit-boot to get a
> better understanding of what FIT solves. With the move to
> multiplatform kernels, it is quite a logical next step to add this
> support to the kernel build.
> 
>> create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
>> would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.
> 
> As for pulling additional tools, dtc is already a part of the kernel
> so the idea is to use existing tools.

Well, dtc won't be part of the kernel build process for ARM at least
once the device tree files are move outside the kernel.

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

On 02/21/2013 01:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 12:15 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>>>> in the kernel.
>>>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>>>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>>>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>>>
>>> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to
>>
>> I don't think so, there are many usecases for FIT and cleanly
>> embedding DTBs is a common usecase, (along with stronger checksums,
>> compression). That is also the basis of my ELC talk tomorrow morning
>> ;-)
>> You could peruse the slides at, http://wwwelinux.org/Fit-boot to get a
>> better understanding of what FIT solves. With the move to
>> multiplatform kernels, it is quite a logical next step to add this
>> support to the kernel build.
>>
>>> create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
>>> would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.
>>
>> As for pulling additional tools, dtc is already a part of the kernel
>> so the idea is to use existing tools.
> 
> Well, dtc won't be part of the kernel build process for ARM at least
> once the device tree files are move outside the kernel.

And at that point it would also make sense to move any other "help folks
get things going" tooling happens to exist out of the kernel.

-- 
Tom

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

On 02/21/2013 01:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 12:15 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>>>> in the kernel.
>>>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>>>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>>>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>>>
>>> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process to
>>
>> I don't think so, there are many usecases for FIT and cleanly
>> embedding DTBs is a common usecase, (along with stronger checksums,
>> compression). That is also the basis of my ELC talk tomorrow morning
>> ;-)
>> You could peruse the slides at, http://wwwelinux.org/Fit-boot to get a
>> better understanding of what FIT solves. With the move to
>> multiplatform kernels, it is quite a logical next step to add this
>> support to the kernel build.
>>
>>> create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea. Doing so
>>> would require pulling in even more outside tools into the kernel build flow.
>>
>> As for pulling additional tools, dtc is already a part of the kernel
>> so the idea is to use existing tools.
> 
> Well, dtc won't be part of the kernel build process for ARM at least
> once the device tree files are move outside the kernel.

And at that point it would also make sense to move any other "help folks
get things going" tooling happens to exist out of the kernel.

-- 
Tom

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/20/2013 11:26 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT
>> build support in the kernel. With the move to multiplatform
>> support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add  FIT support,
>> also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs, as it is a nice
>> way
> 
> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process
> to create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea.
> Doing so would require pulling in even more outside tools into the
> kernel build flow.

No, it requires no more tools than we have today.  It's still just
mkimage and a device tree file.

> All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files
> into /boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by
> constructing the filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then use
> the bootz command to boot it. You can have a completely generic
> boot.scr (or built-in script).

Note you still have to copy N dtb files into the filesystem.  Or one
file, the FIT image.

> Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need to
> flash a new U-Boot to support FIT, so you may as well just flash a
> new U-Boot that implements the ${soc} and ${board} variables
> instead. IIRC, there may also be a ${boardname} or similar that's
> like ${board}, but represents the runtime-detected board for when
> one U-Boot build actually supports multiple different boards.

And enable bootz as well.  Just about as many boards enable that as do
FIT.  And FIT has been around for years, bootz not so.  So in theory
folks with old/odd boards that didn't bother to get mainlined in
U-Boot could still have FIT support added, easily.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=M25C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/20/2013 11:26 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT
>> build support in the kernel. With the move to multiplatform
>> support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add  FIT support,
>> also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs, as it is a nice
>> way
> 
> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process
> to create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea.
> Doing so would require pulling in even more outside tools into the
> kernel build flow.

No, it requires no more tools than we have today.  It's still just
mkimage and a device tree file.

> All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files
> into /boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by
> constructing the filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then use
> the bootz command to boot it. You can have a completely generic
> boot.scr (or built-in script).

Note you still have to copy N dtb files into the filesystem.  Or one
file, the FIT image.

> Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need to
> flash a new U-Boot to support FIT, so you may as well just flash a
> new U-Boot that implements the ${soc} and ${board} variables
> instead. IIRC, there may also be a ${boardname} or similar that's
> like ${board}, but represents the runtime-detected board for when
> one U-Boot build actually supports multiple different boards.

And enable bootz as well.  Just about as many boards enable that as do
FIT.  And FIT has been around for years, bootz not so.  So in theory
folks with old/odd boards that didn't bother to get mainlined in
U-Boot could still have FIT support added, easily.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRJiE9AAoJENk4IS6UOR1WmVsP/2FEIJVDkB1Aefl5Zs0c1pGa
FjhDKASnsu8SqjHfjP6o0xkbxhdQHQw0AzDGOlGfbkDk7SUVLmyYkI8WeeZ/O6dB
cGW7zTV1TXU+Hjl3VqDBID7cskCANNn35fcbba5Q9+0Lo+KD39Jme63hilu2EBfj
njFbC55+U4yOY+uRD99w32GMd+yHaOL5yTQICmMasBuwsRfP/vrPIy9LBQ7z73Xd
f9/D0tfz1O5/QHxkn41zHfHDKoTpa3fbDcp3d/jgPPQK682nN38RD48s4AeC/1m4
GsnHEY3ykMIAPV49dEBm3ebC0HavIZ5sB5JlQh09Hk7kPQ4yJJgwpLzhxhByN0LR
3s5OgexNAuREtJWbOpghwS2d2GajNSPy845TmznkZI9gTWUi5PhA/6h+JQVm7/Ls
K515cs4TSvAEHUMP60AtvSi8Axe6nnDAJcTpPEeQyskCR2jGAmt80XsioJ0fprls
cZZr7shkarqdQbFjSLpvIFVSo0//xPq4OaLqoKInxmDQEYNmzCcKsbB2LlXywq7l
Tr6vrxe9O2BhJhXpi1NNBlJsOmII3Ft6/0MKKer8E3poITo6TKbRQG2O17lR49JP
RRbIKDB8X1wM2YybHHQaGwOTnkjZSGsYHDi9qKuK27UA27qGbu/FDmfHYPHsNpBo
ziTmDL5uI7rFQEkHiYVd
=M25C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/20/2013 11:26 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT
>> build support in the kernel. With the move to multiplatform
>> support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add  FIT support,
>> also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs, as it is a nice
>> way
> 
> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build process
> to create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a good idea.
> Doing so would require pulling in even more outside tools into the
> kernel build flow.

No, it requires no more tools than we have today.  It's still just
mkimage and a device tree file.

> All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files
> into /boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by
> constructing the filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then use
> the bootz command to boot it. You can have a completely generic
> boot.scr (or built-in script).

Note you still have to copy N dtb files into the filesystem.  Or one
file, the FIT image.

> Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need to
> flash a new U-Boot to support FIT, so you may as well just flash a
> new U-Boot that implements the ${soc} and ${board} variables
> instead. IIRC, there may also be a ${boardname} or similar that's
> like ${board}, but represents the runtime-detected board for when
> one U-Boot build actually supports multiple different boards.

And enable bootz as well.  Just about as many boards enable that as do
FIT.  And FIT has been around for years, bootz not so.  So in theory
folks with old/odd boards that didn't bother to get mainlined in
U-Boot could still have FIT support added, easily.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=M25C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 06:29 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 11:26 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for
>>> FIT build support in the kernel. With the move to
>>> multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add
>>> FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs,
>>> as it is a nice way
> 
>> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build
>> process to create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a
>> good idea. Doing so would require pulling in even more outside
>> tools into the kernel build flow.
> 
> No, it requires no more tools than we have today.  It's still just 
> mkimage and a device tree file.

mkimage isn't required today, if you use the bootz target rather than
bootm. Using bootz is a huge improvement since you don't need to use
bootloader-specific tools to create the kernel boot images; just slap
them on the disk, and you're done. Nothing could be simpler.

>> All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files 
>> into /boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by 
>> constructing the filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then
>> use the bootz command to boot it. You can have a completely
>> generic boot.scr (or built-in script).
> 
> Note you still have to copy N dtb files into the filesystem.  Or
> one file, the FIT image.

But you have to generate the FIT image that packages all the files
together.

The long-term goal for device tree is to move the *.dts files out of
the kernel source. It's unclear if there will be some single central
repository for them, or whether vendors will host their own repository
just for their own boards. The latter would probably scale the best.
Having separate distro packages for different vendors' or different
SoCs' device tree would also scale the best; forcing usage of FIT
where everything gets merged together doesn't interact well with that.

>> Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need
>> to flash a new U-Boot to support FIT, so you may as well just
>> flash a new U-Boot that implements the ${soc} and ${board}
>> variables instead. IIRC, there may also be a ${boardname} or
>> similar that's like ${board}, but represents the runtime-detected
>> board for when one U-Boot build actually supports multiple
>> different boards.
> 
> And enable bootz as well.  Just about as many boards enable that as
> do FIT.  And FIT has been around for years, bootz not so.  So in
> theory folks with old/odd boards that didn't bother to get
> mainlined in U-Boot could still have FIT support added, easily.

I guess that's true, but enabling bootz in a U-Boot ends up bringing
in a lot less conceptual complexity, and I would guess a bit less code
too.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 06:29 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 11:26 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for
>>> FIT build support in the kernel. With the move to
>>> multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add
>>> FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs,
>>> as it is a nice way
> 
>> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build
>> process to create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a
>> good idea. Doing so would require pulling in even more outside
>> tools into the kernel build flow.
> 
> No, it requires no more tools than we have today.  It's still just 
> mkimage and a device tree file.

mkimage isn't required today, if you use the bootz target rather than
bootm. Using bootz is a huge improvement since you don't need to use
bootloader-specific tools to create the kernel boot images; just slap
them on the disk, and you're done. Nothing could be simpler.

>> All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files 
>> into /boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by 
>> constructing the filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then
>> use the bootz command to boot it. You can have a completely
>> generic boot.scr (or built-in script).
> 
> Note you still have to copy N dtb files into the filesystem.  Or
> one file, the FIT image.

But you have to generate the FIT image that packages all the files
together.

The long-term goal for device tree is to move the *.dts files out of
the kernel source. It's unclear if there will be some single central
repository for them, or whether vendors will host their own repository
just for their own boards. The latter would probably scale the best.
Having separate distro packages for different vendors' or different
SoCs' device tree would also scale the best; forcing usage of FIT
where everything gets merged together doesn't interact well with that.

>> Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need
>> to flash a new U-Boot to support FIT, so you may as well just
>> flash a new U-Boot that implements the ${soc} and ${board}
>> variables instead. IIRC, there may also be a ${boardname} or
>> similar that's like ${board}, but represents the runtime-detected
>> board for when one U-Boot build actually supports multiple
>> different boards.
> 
> And enable bootz as well.  Just about as many boards enable that as
> do FIT.  And FIT has been around for years, bootz not so.  So in
> theory folks with old/odd boards that didn't bother to get
> mainlined in U-Boot could still have FIT support added, easily.

I guess that's true, but enabling bootz in a U-Boot ends up bringing
in a lot less conceptual complexity, and I would guess a bit less code
too.

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 06:29 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/20/2013 11:26 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/20/2013 06:37 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for
>>> FIT build support in the kernel. With the move to
>>> multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add
>>> FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs,
>>> as it is a nice way
> 
>> To my mind, FIT is pointless. And forcing the kernel build
>> process to create bootloader-specific files doesn't seem like a
>> good idea. Doing so would require pulling in even more outside
>> tools into the kernel build flow.
> 
> No, it requires no more tools than we have today.  It's still just 
> mkimage and a device tree file.

mkimage isn't required today, if you use the bootz target rather than
bootm. Using bootz is a huge improvement since you don't need to use
bootloader-specific tools to create the kernel boot images; just slap
them on the disk, and you're done. Nothing could be simpler.

>> All you need is to copy the zImage and any relevant .dtb files 
>> into /boot, and have U-Boot load the relevant .dtb file by 
>> constructing the filename as roughly ${soc}-${board}.dtb, then
>> use the bootz command to boot it. You can have a completely
>> generic boot.scr (or built-in script).
> 
> Note you still have to copy N dtb files into the filesystem.  Or
> one file, the FIT image.

But you have to generate the FIT image that packages all the files
together.

The long-term goal for device tree is to move the *.dts files out of
the kernel source. It's unclear if there will be some single central
repository for them, or whether vendors will host their own repository
just for their own boards. The latter would probably scale the best.
Having separate distro packages for different vendors' or different
SoCs' device tree would also scale the best; forcing usage of FIT
where everything gets merged together doesn't interact well with that.

>> Note: Not all (many?) U-Boot support FIT anyway, so you'd need
>> to flash a new U-Boot to support FIT, so you may as well just
>> flash a new U-Boot that implements the ${soc} and ${board}
>> variables instead. IIRC, there may also be a ${boardname} or
>> similar that's like ${board}, but represents the runtime-detected
>> board for when one U-Boot build actually supports multiple
>> different boards.
> 
> And enable bootz as well.  Just about as many boards enable that as
> do FIT.  And FIT has been around for years, bootz not so.  So in
> theory folks with old/odd boards that didn't bother to get
> mainlined in U-Boot could still have FIT support added, easily.

I guess that's true, but enabling bootz in a U-Boot ends up bringing
in a lot less conceptual complexity, and I would guess a bit less code
too.

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hello,
> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
> in the kernel.
> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
> dtbs, as it is a nice way

I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the kernel
just for the hell of uboot.

And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay there.  The
longer term plan is for them to end up in an external git tree, entirely
separate from the kernel source.  So anything that ties them with the
kernel build process will ultimately have to be removed again.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hello,
> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
> in the kernel.
> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
> dtbs, as it is a nice way

I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the kernel
just for the hell of uboot.

And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay there.  The
longer term plan is for them to end up in an external git tree, entirely
separate from the kernel source.  So anything that ties them with the
kernel build process will ultimately have to be removed again.

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hello,
> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
> in the kernel.
> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
> dtbs, as it is a nice way

I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the kernel
just for the hell of uboot.

And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay there.  The
longer term plan is for them to end up in an external git tree, entirely
separate from the kernel source.  So anything that ties them with the
kernel build process will ultimately have to be removed again.

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2013 05:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT
>> build support in the kernel. With the move to multiplatform
>> support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add  FIT support,
>> also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs, as it is a nice
>> way
> 
> I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the
> kernel just for the hell of uboot.

Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
kernel uses.

> And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay
> there.  The longer term plan is for them to end up in an external
> git tree, entirely separate from the kernel source.  So anything
> that ties them with the kernel build process will ultimately have
> to be removed again.

Well, once the device trees move to some external location, this
script could also easily move out with it.  And I'd hope there'd be
interest out in the rest of the world for a single file boots on
multiple platforms image format.  If the ability to do this was
actually well known, it might even stop people from re-inventing the
wheel for fun (re-inventing due to design problems with the previous
wheel is acceptable).

We're just about to make a lot of folks lives harder (whatever the
userbase is for omap2plus_defconfig).  How much time do we want to
spend offering up alternatives?

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=iUUO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2013 05:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT
>> build support in the kernel. With the move to multiplatform
>> support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add  FIT support,
>> also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs, as it is a nice
>> way
> 
> I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the
> kernel just for the hell of uboot.

Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
kernel uses.

> And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay
> there.  The longer term plan is for them to end up in an external
> git tree, entirely separate from the kernel source.  So anything
> that ties them with the kernel build process will ultimately have
> to be removed again.

Well, once the device trees move to some external location, this
script could also easily move out with it.  And I'd hope there'd be
interest out in the rest of the world for a single file boots on
multiple platforms image format.  If the ability to do this was
actually well known, it might even stop people from re-inventing the
wheel for fun (re-inventing due to design problems with the previous
wheel is acceptable).

We're just about to make a lot of folks lives harder (whatever the
userbase is for omap2plus_defconfig).  How much time do we want to
spend offering up alternatives?

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=iUUO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2013 05:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT
>> build support in the kernel. With the move to multiplatform
>> support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add  FIT support,
>> also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs, as it is a nice
>> way
> 
> I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the
> kernel just for the hell of uboot.

Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
kernel uses.

> And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay
> there.  The longer term plan is for them to end up in an external
> git tree, entirely separate from the kernel source.  So anything
> that ties them with the kernel build process will ultimately have
> to be removed again.

Well, once the device trees move to some external location, this
script could also easily move out with it.  And I'd hope there'd be
interest out in the rest of the world for a single file boots on
multiple platforms image format.  If the ability to do this was
actually well known, it might even stop people from re-inventing the
wheel for fun (re-inventing due to design problems with the previous
wheel is acceptable).

We're just about to make a lot of folks lives harder (whatever the
userbase is for omap2plus_defconfig).  How much time do we want to
spend offering up alternatives?

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=iUUO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:20:56AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 05:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> >> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT
> >> build support in the kernel. With the move to multiplatform
> >> support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add  FIT support,
> >> also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs, as it is a nice
> >> way
> > 
> > I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the
> > kernel just for the hell of uboot.
> 
> Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
> 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
> kernel uses.

So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in it so
far.  That speaks volumes...

> > And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay
> > there.  The longer term plan is for them to end up in an external
> > git tree, entirely separate from the kernel source.  So anything
> > that ties them with the kernel build process will ultimately have
> > to be removed again.
> 
> Well, once the device trees move to some external location, this
> script could also easily move out with it.  And I'd hope there'd be
> interest out in the rest of the world for a single file boots on
> multiple platforms image format.

We've had that for the last 18 years.  It's called zImage.  The real
problem is that uboot has been particularly difficult over this -
uboot and _only_ uboot wants to use its own special file formats.  No
other boot loader on ARM has ever wanted this stuff - everything else
has been totally happy with zImage.

uboot even now supports zImage through the bootz command, so it now
supports the "native" format used on ARM.

> We're just about to make a lot of folks lives harder (whatever the
> userbase is for omap2plus_defconfig).  How much time do we want to
> spend offering up alternatives?

We're about to make it harder how?  By forcing them to use DT blobs?
Or by forcing them to have to use the combined zImage + DT format
because their boot loaders are soo broken that they can't deal with
multiple images?

Yes, things have become a _little_ harder since OMAP has switched to
multiplatform, but it really isn't that bad.  My build and boot test
system still works, and it uses uImage for all the OMAP platforms.
You just have to give the right LOADADDR= argument to the kernel to
make the uImage generation work again.  Sure, the resulting uImage
can't be loaded at a different address, but you if you need to change
that, you can quite easily move the existing uImage out and re-run
make ARCH=arm uImage LOADADDR=<something else> and hey presto, you
end up with the uImage generated for a different address.

But: we wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for these absurd
uboot uImage formats in the first place.  Or even be needing this
FIT stuff if zImage was just used directly.

uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:20:56AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 05:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> >> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT
> >> build support in the kernel. With the move to multiplatform
> >> support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add  FIT support,
> >> also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs, as it is a nice
> >> way
> > 
> > I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the
> > kernel just for the hell of uboot.
> 
> Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
> 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
> kernel uses.

So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in it so
far.  That speaks volumes...

> > And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay
> > there.  The longer term plan is for them to end up in an external
> > git tree, entirely separate from the kernel source.  So anything
> > that ties them with the kernel build process will ultimately have
> > to be removed again.
> 
> Well, once the device trees move to some external location, this
> script could also easily move out with it.  And I'd hope there'd be
> interest out in the rest of the world for a single file boots on
> multiple platforms image format.

We've had that for the last 18 years.  It's called zImage.  The real
problem is that uboot has been particularly difficult over this -
uboot and _only_ uboot wants to use its own special file formats.  No
other boot loader on ARM has ever wanted this stuff - everything else
has been totally happy with zImage.

uboot even now supports zImage through the bootz command, so it now
supports the "native" format used on ARM.

> We're just about to make a lot of folks lives harder (whatever the
> userbase is for omap2plus_defconfig).  How much time do we want to
> spend offering up alternatives?

We're about to make it harder how?  By forcing them to use DT blobs?
Or by forcing them to have to use the combined zImage + DT format
because their boot loaders are soo broken that they can't deal with
multiple images?

Yes, things have become a _little_ harder since OMAP has switched to
multiplatform, but it really isn't that bad.  My build and boot test
system still works, and it uses uImage for all the OMAP platforms.
You just have to give the right LOADADDR= argument to the kernel to
make the uImage generation work again.  Sure, the resulting uImage
can't be loaded at a different address, but you if you need to change
that, you can quite easily move the existing uImage out and re-run
make ARCH=arm uImage LOADADDR=<something else> and hey presto, you
end up with the uImage generated for a different address.

But: we wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for these absurd
uboot uImage formats in the first place.  Or even be needing this
FIT stuff if zImage was just used directly.

uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:20:56AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 05:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> >> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT
> >> build support in the kernel. With the move to multiplatform
> >> support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to add  FIT support,
> >> also looking at the proliferating number of dtbs, as it is a nice
> >> way
> > 
> > I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the
> > kernel just for the hell of uboot.
> 
> Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
> 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
> kernel uses.

So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in it so
far.  That speaks volumes...

> > And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay
> > there.  The longer term plan is for them to end up in an external
> > git tree, entirely separate from the kernel source.  So anything
> > that ties them with the kernel build process will ultimately have
> > to be removed again.
> 
> Well, once the device trees move to some external location, this
> script could also easily move out with it.  And I'd hope there'd be
> interest out in the rest of the world for a single file boots on
> multiple platforms image format.

We've had that for the last 18 years.  It's called zImage.  The real
problem is that uboot has been particularly difficult over this -
uboot and _only_ uboot wants to use its own special file formats.  No
other boot loader on ARM has ever wanted this stuff - everything else
has been totally happy with zImage.

uboot even now supports zImage through the bootz command, so it now
supports the "native" format used on ARM.

> We're just about to make a lot of folks lives harder (whatever the
> userbase is for omap2plus_defconfig).  How much time do we want to
> spend offering up alternatives?

We're about to make it harder how?  By forcing them to use DT blobs?
Or by forcing them to have to use the combined zImage + DT format
because their boot loaders are soo broken that they can't deal with
multiple images?

Yes, things have become a _little_ harder since OMAP has switched to
multiplatform, but it really isn't that bad.  My build and boot test
system still works, and it uses uImage for all the OMAP platforms.
You just have to give the right LOADADDR= argument to the kernel to
make the uImage generation work again.  Sure, the resulting uImage
can't be loaded at a different address, but you if you need to change
that, you can quite easily move the existing uImage out and re-run
make ARCH=arm uImage LOADADDR=<something else> and hey presto, you
end up with the uImage generated for a different address.

But: we wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for these absurd
uboot uImage formats in the first place.  Or even be needing this
FIT stuff if zImage was just used directly.

uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2013 08:46 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:20:56AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 05:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for
>>>> FIT build support in the kernel. With the move to
>>>> multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to
>>>> add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>>>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>>> 
>>> I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to
>>> the kernel just for the hell of uboot.
>> 
>> Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March 
>> 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what
>> the kernel uses.
> 
> So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in
> it so far.  That speaks volumes...

No, it was just rejected a while back over in PowerPC-land by gcl
(whom I talked with, but won't put words in his mouth here) and no one
thought about bringing it forward again until now.

>>> And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay 
>>> there.  The longer term plan is for them to end up in an
>>> external git tree, entirely separate from the kernel source.
>>> So anything that ties them with the kernel build process will
>>> ultimately have to be removed again.
>> 
>> Well, once the device trees move to some external location, this 
>> script could also easily move out with it.  And I'd hope there'd
>> be interest out in the rest of the world for a single file boots
>> on multiple platforms image format.
> 
> We've had that for the last 18 years.  It's called zImage.  The
> real problem is that uboot has been particularly difficult over
> this - uboot and _only_ uboot wants to use its own special file
> formats.  No other boot loader on ARM has ever wanted this stuff -
> everything else has been totally happy with zImage.
> 
> uboot even now supports zImage through the bootz command, so it
> now supports the "native" format used on ARM.
> 
>> We're just about to make a lot of folks lives harder (whatever
>> the userbase is for omap2plus_defconfig).  How much time do we
>> want to spend offering up alternatives?
> 
> We're about to make it harder how?  By forcing them to use DT
> blobs? Or by forcing them to have to use the combined zImage + DT
> format because their boot loaders are soo broken that they can't
> deal with multiple images?

None of that.  We're making it harder since most folks don't have a
board with 'bootz' built-in and the 'uImage' target doesn't build now
(unless, yes, you pass LOADADDR to make) so they either format it by
hand (/ adjust their local scripting) or do what you're doing.

> Yes, things have become a _little_ harder since OMAP has switched
> to multiplatform, but it really isn't that bad.  My build and boot
> test system still works, and it uses uImage for all the OMAP
> platforms. You just have to give the right LOADADDR= argument to
> the kernel to make the uImage generation work again.  Sure, the
> resulting uImage can't be loaded at a different address, but you if
> you need to change that, you can quite easily move the existing
> uImage out and re-run make ARCH=arm uImage LOADADDR=<something
> else> and hey presto, you end up with the uImage generated for a
> different address.
> 
> But: we wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for these
> absurd uboot uImage formats in the first place.  Or even be needing
> this FIT stuff if zImage was just used directly.

FIT isn't required.  FIT is just trying to offer a nice usability
thing to folks.  A point of device trees is a single image works in a
lot of places.  FIT gives you a single file works in a lot of places.

> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.

A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying to
offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for everyone.  Or
it gets rejected here too and distros will come up with their N
different ways to try and provide easier experiences to the end user.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=O7jS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2013 08:46 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:20:56AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 05:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for
>>>> FIT build support in the kernel. With the move to
>>>> multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to
>>>> add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>>>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>>> 
>>> I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to
>>> the kernel just for the hell of uboot.
>> 
>> Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March 
>> 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what
>> the kernel uses.
> 
> So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in
> it so far.  That speaks volumes...

No, it was just rejected a while back over in PowerPC-land by gcl
(whom I talked with, but won't put words in his mouth here) and no one
thought about bringing it forward again until now.

>>> And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay 
>>> there.  The longer term plan is for them to end up in an
>>> external git tree, entirely separate from the kernel source.
>>> So anything that ties them with the kernel build process will
>>> ultimately have to be removed again.
>> 
>> Well, once the device trees move to some external location, this 
>> script could also easily move out with it.  And I'd hope there'd
>> be interest out in the rest of the world for a single file boots
>> on multiple platforms image format.
> 
> We've had that for the last 18 years.  It's called zImage.  The
> real problem is that uboot has been particularly difficult over
> this - uboot and _only_ uboot wants to use its own special file
> formats.  No other boot loader on ARM has ever wanted this stuff -
> everything else has been totally happy with zImage.
> 
> uboot even now supports zImage through the bootz command, so it
> now supports the "native" format used on ARM.
> 
>> We're just about to make a lot of folks lives harder (whatever
>> the userbase is for omap2plus_defconfig).  How much time do we
>> want to spend offering up alternatives?
> 
> We're about to make it harder how?  By forcing them to use DT
> blobs? Or by forcing them to have to use the combined zImage + DT
> format because their boot loaders are soo broken that they can't
> deal with multiple images?

None of that.  We're making it harder since most folks don't have a
board with 'bootz' built-in and the 'uImage' target doesn't build now
(unless, yes, you pass LOADADDR to make) so they either format it by
hand (/ adjust their local scripting) or do what you're doing.

> Yes, things have become a _little_ harder since OMAP has switched
> to multiplatform, but it really isn't that bad.  My build and boot
> test system still works, and it uses uImage for all the OMAP
> platforms. You just have to give the right LOADADDR= argument to
> the kernel to make the uImage generation work again.  Sure, the
> resulting uImage can't be loaded at a different address, but you if
> you need to change that, you can quite easily move the existing
> uImage out and re-run make ARCH=arm uImage LOADADDR=<something
> else> and hey presto, you end up with the uImage generated for a
> different address.
> 
> But: we wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for these
> absurd uboot uImage formats in the first place.  Or even be needing
> this FIT stuff if zImage was just used directly.

FIT isn't required.  FIT is just trying to offer a nice usability
thing to folks.  A point of device trees is a single image works in a
lot of places.  FIT gives you a single file works in a lot of places.

> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.

A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying to
offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for everyone.  Or
it gets rejected here too and distros will come up with their N
different ways to try and provide easier experiences to the end user.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=O7jS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2013 08:46 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 08:20:56AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 05:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hello, I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for
>>>> FIT build support in the kernel. With the move to
>>>> multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good time to
>>>> add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>>>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>>> 
>>> I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to
>>> the kernel just for the hell of uboot.
>> 
>> Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March 
>> 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what
>> the kernel uses.
> 
> So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in
> it so far.  That speaks volumes...

No, it was just rejected a while back over in PowerPC-land by gcl
(whom I talked with, but won't put words in his mouth here) and no one
thought about bringing it forward again until now.

>>> And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay 
>>> there.  The longer term plan is for them to end up in an
>>> external git tree, entirely separate from the kernel source.
>>> So anything that ties them with the kernel build process will
>>> ultimately have to be removed again.
>> 
>> Well, once the device trees move to some external location, this 
>> script could also easily move out with it.  And I'd hope there'd
>> be interest out in the rest of the world for a single file boots
>> on multiple platforms image format.
> 
> We've had that for the last 18 years.  It's called zImage.  The
> real problem is that uboot has been particularly difficult over
> this - uboot and _only_ uboot wants to use its own special file
> formats.  No other boot loader on ARM has ever wanted this stuff -
> everything else has been totally happy with zImage.
> 
> uboot even now supports zImage through the bootz command, so it
> now supports the "native" format used on ARM.
> 
>> We're just about to make a lot of folks lives harder (whatever
>> the userbase is for omap2plus_defconfig).  How much time do we
>> want to spend offering up alternatives?
> 
> We're about to make it harder how?  By forcing them to use DT
> blobs? Or by forcing them to have to use the combined zImage + DT
> format because their boot loaders are soo broken that they can't
> deal with multiple images?

None of that.  We're making it harder since most folks don't have a
board with 'bootz' built-in and the 'uImage' target doesn't build now
(unless, yes, you pass LOADADDR to make) so they either format it by
hand (/ adjust their local scripting) or do what you're doing.

> Yes, things have become a _little_ harder since OMAP has switched
> to multiplatform, but it really isn't that bad.  My build and boot
> test system still works, and it uses uImage for all the OMAP
> platforms. You just have to give the right LOADADDR= argument to
> the kernel to make the uImage generation work again.  Sure, the
> resulting uImage can't be loaded at a different address, but you if
> you need to change that, you can quite easily move the existing
> uImage out and re-run make ARCH=arm uImage LOADADDR=<something
> else> and hey presto, you end up with the uImage generated for a
> different address.
> 
> But: we wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for these
> absurd uboot uImage formats in the first place.  Or even be needing
> this FIT stuff if zImage was just used directly.

FIT isn't required.  FIT is just trying to offer a nice usability
thing to folks.  A point of device trees is a single image works in a
lot of places.  FIT gives you a single file works in a lot of places.

> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.

A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying to
offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for everyone.  Or
it gets rejected here too and distros will come up with their N
different ways to try and provide easier experiences to the end user.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=O7jS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

(Dropped uboot mailing list because it constantly holds my mails for
moderation.)

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:08:58AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 08:46 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > We're about to make it harder how?  By forcing them to use DT
> > blobs? Or by forcing them to have to use the combined zImage + DT
> > format because their boot loaders are soo broken that they can't
> > deal with multiple images?
> 
> None of that.  We're making it harder since most folks don't have a
> board with 'bootz' built-in and the 'uImage' target doesn't build now
> (unless, yes, you pass LOADADDR to make) so they either format it by
> hand (/ adjust their local scripting) or do what you're doing.

And adjusting their process to pass an additional argument to the
kernel make is too difficult?

So instead we have to change the kernel makefiles and scripting to
create yet another uboot specific format, which is going to need
them to edit their scripts in a much more invasive way _anyway_?

"or do what you're doing" - oh you mean, adding an additional column
to the database configuration, digging out from the kernel git
history what the load addresses should be, updating the database tables
with that, editing the build system scripts to extract this new column
from the database, and pass it into make... yes, complicated isn't it.
Didn't take long to sort out though, and didn't require a load of new
file formats to fix.

> > Yes, things have become a _little_ harder since OMAP has switched
> > to multiplatform, but it really isn't that bad.  My build and boot
> > test system still works, and it uses uImage for all the OMAP
> > platforms. You just have to give the right LOADADDR= argument to
> > the kernel to make the uImage generation work again.  Sure, the
> > resulting uImage can't be loaded at a different address, but you if
> > you need to change that, you can quite easily move the existing
> > uImage out and re-run make ARCH=arm uImage LOADADDR=<something
> > else> and hey presto, you end up with the uImage generated for a
> > different address.
> > 
> > But: we wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for these
> > absurd uboot uImage formats in the first place.  Or even be needing
> > this FIT stuff if zImage was just used directly.
> 
> FIT isn't required.  FIT is just trying to offer a nice usability
> thing to folks.  A point of device trees is a single image works in a
> lot of places.  FIT gives you a single file works in a lot of places.

Well, FIT isn't everywhere either.  So really that argument doesn't
stand for the same reasons that bootz support isn't everywhere either.

My SDP4430's uboot provided by TI uses uboot 1.1.4.  Therefore, it
doesn't support FIT, nor bootz - only uImage.

> > uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
> 
> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying to
> offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for everyone.  Or
> it gets rejected here too and distros will come up with their N
> different ways to try and provide easier experiences to the end user.

FIT just propagates the "boot loader specific file format" absurdity
which was a mistake when uImage came along...

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

(Dropped uboot mailing list because it constantly holds my mails for
moderation.)

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:08:58AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 08:46 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > We're about to make it harder how?  By forcing them to use DT
> > blobs? Or by forcing them to have to use the combined zImage + DT
> > format because their boot loaders are soo broken that they can't
> > deal with multiple images?
> 
> None of that.  We're making it harder since most folks don't have a
> board with 'bootz' built-in and the 'uImage' target doesn't build now
> (unless, yes, you pass LOADADDR to make) so they either format it by
> hand (/ adjust their local scripting) or do what you're doing.

And adjusting their process to pass an additional argument to the
kernel make is too difficult?

So instead we have to change the kernel makefiles and scripting to
create yet another uboot specific format, which is going to need
them to edit their scripts in a much more invasive way _anyway_?

"or do what you're doing" - oh you mean, adding an additional column
to the database configuration, digging out from the kernel git
history what the load addresses should be, updating the database tables
with that, editing the build system scripts to extract this new column
from the database, and pass it into make... yes, complicated isn't it.
Didn't take long to sort out though, and didn't require a load of new
file formats to fix.

> > Yes, things have become a _little_ harder since OMAP has switched
> > to multiplatform, but it really isn't that bad.  My build and boot
> > test system still works, and it uses uImage for all the OMAP
> > platforms. You just have to give the right LOADADDR= argument to
> > the kernel to make the uImage generation work again.  Sure, the
> > resulting uImage can't be loaded at a different address, but you if
> > you need to change that, you can quite easily move the existing
> > uImage out and re-run make ARCH=arm uImage LOADADDR=<something
> > else> and hey presto, you end up with the uImage generated for a
> > different address.
> > 
> > But: we wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for these
> > absurd uboot uImage formats in the first place.  Or even be needing
> > this FIT stuff if zImage was just used directly.
> 
> FIT isn't required.  FIT is just trying to offer a nice usability
> thing to folks.  A point of device trees is a single image works in a
> lot of places.  FIT gives you a single file works in a lot of places.

Well, FIT isn't everywhere either.  So really that argument doesn't
stand for the same reasons that bootz support isn't everywhere either.

My SDP4430's uboot provided by TI uses uboot 1.1.4.  Therefore, it
doesn't support FIT, nor bootz - only uImage.

> > uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
> 
> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying to
> offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for everyone.  Or
> it gets rejected here too and distros will come up with their N
> different ways to try and provide easier experiences to the end user.

FIT just propagates the "boot loader specific file format" absurdity
which was a mistake when uImage came along...

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

On 02/21/2013 09:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> (Dropped uboot mailing list because it constantly holds my mails for
> moderation.)
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:08:58AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 08:46 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> We're about to make it harder how?  By forcing them to use DT
>>> blobs? Or by forcing them to have to use the combined zImage + DT
>>> format because their boot loaders are soo broken that they can't
>>> deal with multiple images?
>>
>> None of that.  We're making it harder since most folks don't have a
>> board with 'bootz' built-in and the 'uImage' target doesn't build now
>> (unless, yes, you pass LOADADDR to make) so they either format it by
>> hand (/ adjust their local scripting) or do what you're doing.
> 
> And adjusting their process to pass an additional argument to the
> kernel make is too difficult?
> 
> So instead we have to change the kernel makefiles and scripting to
> create yet another uboot specific format, which is going to need
> them to edit their scripts in a much more invasive way _anyway_?
> 
> "or do what you're doing" - oh you mean, adding an additional column
> to the database configuration, digging out from the kernel git
> history what the load addresses should be, updating the database tables
> with that, editing the build system scripts to extract this new column
> from the database, and pass it into make... yes, complicated isn't it.
> Didn't take long to sort out though, and didn't require a load of new
> file formats to fix.

Shrug.  Time will tell if everyone adopts as easily as you have.

>>> Yes, things have become a _little_ harder since OMAP has switched
>>> to multiplatform, but it really isn't that bad.  My build and boot
>>> test system still works, and it uses uImage for all the OMAP
>>> platforms. You just have to give the right LOADADDR= argument to
>>> the kernel to make the uImage generation work again.  Sure, the
>>> resulting uImage can't be loaded at a different address, but you if
>>> you need to change that, you can quite easily move the existing
>>> uImage out and re-run make ARCH=arm uImage LOADADDR=<something
>>> else> and hey presto, you end up with the uImage generated for a
>>> different address.
>>>
>>> But: we wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for these
>>> absurd uboot uImage formats in the first place.  Or even be needing
>>> this FIT stuff if zImage was just used directly.
>>
>> FIT isn't required.  FIT is just trying to offer a nice usability
>> thing to folks.  A point of device trees is a single image works in a
>> lot of places.  FIT gives you a single file works in a lot of places.
> 
> Well, FIT isn't everywhere either.  So really that argument doesn't
> stand for the same reasons that bootz support isn't everywhere either.
> 
> My SDP4430's uboot provided by TI uses uboot 1.1.4.  Therefore, it
> doesn't support FIT, nor bootz - only uImage.

Because I can easily see TI having given you an "odder" than usual
board, I won't suggest you simply run mainline U-Boot instead (and
enable CONFIG_CMD_BOOTZ).  I was wondering how old what we gave you was
tho, sigh.

>>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
>>
>> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying to
>> offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for everyone.  Or
>> it gets rejected here too and distros will come up with their N
>> different ways to try and provide easier experiences to the end user.
> 
> FIT just propagates the "boot loader specific file format" absurdity
> which was a mistake when uImage came along...

Would you feel better about it if something else parsed FIT too?

-- 
Tom

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

On 02/21/2013 09:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> (Dropped uboot mailing list because it constantly holds my mails for
> moderation.)
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:08:58AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 08:46 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> We're about to make it harder how?  By forcing them to use DT
>>> blobs? Or by forcing them to have to use the combined zImage + DT
>>> format because their boot loaders are soo broken that they can't
>>> deal with multiple images?
>>
>> None of that.  We're making it harder since most folks don't have a
>> board with 'bootz' built-in and the 'uImage' target doesn't build now
>> (unless, yes, you pass LOADADDR to make) so they either format it by
>> hand (/ adjust their local scripting) or do what you're doing.
> 
> And adjusting their process to pass an additional argument to the
> kernel make is too difficult?
> 
> So instead we have to change the kernel makefiles and scripting to
> create yet another uboot specific format, which is going to need
> them to edit their scripts in a much more invasive way _anyway_?
> 
> "or do what you're doing" - oh you mean, adding an additional column
> to the database configuration, digging out from the kernel git
> history what the load addresses should be, updating the database tables
> with that, editing the build system scripts to extract this new column
> from the database, and pass it into make... yes, complicated isn't it.
> Didn't take long to sort out though, and didn't require a load of new
> file formats to fix.

Shrug.  Time will tell if everyone adopts as easily as you have.

>>> Yes, things have become a _little_ harder since OMAP has switched
>>> to multiplatform, but it really isn't that bad.  My build and boot
>>> test system still works, and it uses uImage for all the OMAP
>>> platforms. You just have to give the right LOADADDR= argument to
>>> the kernel to make the uImage generation work again.  Sure, the
>>> resulting uImage can't be loaded at a different address, but you if
>>> you need to change that, you can quite easily move the existing
>>> uImage out and re-run make ARCH=arm uImage LOADADDR=<something
>>> else> and hey presto, you end up with the uImage generated for a
>>> different address.
>>>
>>> But: we wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for these
>>> absurd uboot uImage formats in the first place.  Or even be needing
>>> this FIT stuff if zImage was just used directly.
>>
>> FIT isn't required.  FIT is just trying to offer a nice usability
>> thing to folks.  A point of device trees is a single image works in a
>> lot of places.  FIT gives you a single file works in a lot of places.
> 
> Well, FIT isn't everywhere either.  So really that argument doesn't
> stand for the same reasons that bootz support isn't everywhere either.
> 
> My SDP4430's uboot provided by TI uses uboot 1.1.4.  Therefore, it
> doesn't support FIT, nor bootz - only uImage.

Because I can easily see TI having given you an "odder" than usual
board, I won't suggest you simply run mainline U-Boot instead (and
enable CONFIG_CMD_BOOTZ).  I was wondering how old what we gave you was
tho, sigh.

>>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
>>
>> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying to
>> offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for everyone.  Or
>> it gets rejected here too and distros will come up with their N
>> different ways to try and provide easier experiences to the end user.
> 
> FIT just propagates the "boot loader specific file format" absurdity
> which was a mistake when uImage came along...

Would you feel better about it if something else parsed FIT too?

-- 
Tom

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:

> FIT isn't required.  FIT is just trying to offer a nice usability
> thing to folks.

Usability is often counter-balanced by maintenance costs.

> A point of device trees is a single image works in a
> lot of places.  FIT gives you a single file works in a lot of places.

The whole _point_ for bringing DT into the ARM land was to decouple the 
the various platform specific stuff from the kernel, and even allow 
existing distros to work on yet-to-be-created devices unchanged, just 
like X86 PC class machines.  Now you're suggesting that the kernel and 
the DT information should be glued together again.  That looks like a 
move backward to me.  Yet, having that platform stuff in plain C code as 
we had before, given it is maintained properly, is still the most 
efficient way to achieve that usability wise.

So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.

> > uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
> 
> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying to
> offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for everyone.  Or
> it gets rejected here too and distros will come up with their N
> different ways to try and provide easier experiences to the end user.

Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that every 
board will start shipping with complete and correct DT description, etc.  
But so is the state of FIT support right now.  That solution to make 
things easier for everyone should actually make that DT vs kernel 
separation more effective and provide better mechanisms for gluing the 
various DTBs to their respective boards, and not to glue them to the 
kernel to populate a distro filesystem with them.


Nicolas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:

> FIT isn't required.  FIT is just trying to offer a nice usability
> thing to folks.

Usability is often counter-balanced by maintenance costs.

> A point of device trees is a single image works in a
> lot of places.  FIT gives you a single file works in a lot of places.

The whole _point_ for bringing DT into the ARM land was to decouple the 
the various platform specific stuff from the kernel, and even allow 
existing distros to work on yet-to-be-created devices unchanged, just 
like X86 PC class machines.  Now you're suggesting that the kernel and 
the DT information should be glued together again.  That looks like a 
move backward to me.  Yet, having that platform stuff in plain C code as 
we had before, given it is maintained properly, is still the most 
efficient way to achieve that usability wise.

So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.

> > uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
> 
> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying to
> offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for everyone.  Or
> it gets rejected here too and distros will come up with their N
> different ways to try and provide easier experiences to the end user.

Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that every 
board will start shipping with complete and correct DT description, etc.  
But so is the state of FIT support right now.  That solution to make 
things easier for everyone should actually make that DT vs kernel 
separation more effective and provide better mechanisms for gluing the 
various DTBs to their respective boards, and not to glue them to the 
kernel to populate a distro filesystem with them.


Nicolas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:

> FIT isn't required.  FIT is just trying to offer a nice usability
> thing to folks.

Usability is often counter-balanced by maintenance costs.

> A point of device trees is a single image works in a
> lot of places.  FIT gives you a single file works in a lot of places.

The whole _point_ for bringing DT into the ARM land was to decouple the 
the various platform specific stuff from the kernel, and even allow 
existing distros to work on yet-to-be-created devices unchanged, just 
like X86 PC class machines.  Now you're suggesting that the kernel and 
the DT information should be glued together again.  That looks like a 
move backward to me.  Yet, having that platform stuff in plain C code as 
we had before, given it is maintained properly, is still the most 
efficient way to achieve that usability wise.

So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.

> > uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
> 
> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying to
> offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for everyone.  Or
> it gets rejected here too and distros will come up with their N
> different ways to try and provide easier experiences to the end user.

Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that every 
board will start shipping with complete and correct DT description, etc.  
But so is the state of FIT support right now.  That solution to make 
things easier for everyone should actually make that DT vs kernel 
separation more effective and provide better mechanisms for gluing the 
various DTBs to their respective boards, and not to glue them to the 
kernel to populate a distro filesystem with them.


Nicolas

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2013 12:25 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
[snip]
>>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
>> 
>> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying
>> to offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for
>> everyone.  Or it gets rejected here too and distros will come up
>> with their N different ways to try and provide easier experiences
>> to the end user.
> 
> Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that
> every board will start shipping with complete and correct DT
> description, etc. But so is the state of FIT support right now.
> That solution to make things easier for everyone should actually
> make that DT vs kernel separation more effective and provide better
> mechanisms for gluing the various DTBs to their respective boards,
> and not to glue them to the kernel to populate a distro filesystem
> with them.

I very much agree here.  And in the end, what I really really want to
avoid is every distribution (or similar grouping of stuff) coming up
with N different ways to solve the problem of "how do I get the user
the right device tree to go with $whatever board they happen to be
running".  If the clever solution everyone comes up with is some other
container that's not FIT, that's fine, patches welcome and happily
reviewed for whatever the solution is.  I just don't want people
thinking this is a problem that hasn't been thought of before.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=vnlO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2013 12:25 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
[snip]
>>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
>> 
>> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying
>> to offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for
>> everyone.  Or it gets rejected here too and distros will come up
>> with their N different ways to try and provide easier experiences
>> to the end user.
> 
> Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that
> every board will start shipping with complete and correct DT
> description, etc. But so is the state of FIT support right now.
> That solution to make things easier for everyone should actually
> make that DT vs kernel separation more effective and provide better
> mechanisms for gluing the various DTBs to their respective boards,
> and not to glue them to the kernel to populate a distro filesystem
> with them.

I very much agree here.  And in the end, what I really really want to
avoid is every distribution (or similar grouping of stuff) coming up
with N different ways to solve the problem of "how do I get the user
the right device tree to go with $whatever board they happen to be
running".  If the clever solution everyone comes up with is some other
container that's not FIT, that's fine, patches welcome and happily
reviewed for whatever the solution is.  I just don't want people
thinking this is a problem that hasn't been thought of before.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=vnlO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2013 12:25 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
[snip]
>>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
>> 
>> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying
>> to offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for
>> everyone.  Or it gets rejected here too and distros will come up
>> with their N different ways to try and provide easier experiences
>> to the end user.
> 
> Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that
> every board will start shipping with complete and correct DT
> description, etc. But so is the state of FIT support right now.
> That solution to make things easier for everyone should actually
> make that DT vs kernel separation more effective and provide better
> mechanisms for gluing the various DTBs to their respective boards,
> and not to glue them to the kernel to populate a distro filesystem
> with them.

I very much agree here.  And in the end, what I really really want to
avoid is every distribution (or similar grouping of stuff) coming up
with N different ways to solve the problem of "how do I get the user
the right device tree to go with $whatever board they happen to be
running".  If the clever solution everyone comes up with is some other
container that's not FIT, that's fine, patches welcome and happily
reviewed for whatever the solution is.  I just don't want people
thinking this is a problem that hasn't been thought of before.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=vnlO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/21/2013 12:25 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
[snip]
>>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
>> 
>> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying
>> to offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for
>> everyone.  Or it gets rejected here too and distros will come up
>> with their N different ways to try and provide easier experiences
>> to the end user.
> 
> Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that
> every board will start shipping with complete and correct DT
> description, etc. But so is the state of FIT support right now.
> That solution to make things easier for everyone should actually
> make that DT vs kernel separation more effective and provide better
> mechanisms for gluing the various DTBs to their respective boards,
> and not to glue them to the kernel to populate a distro filesystem
> with them.

I very much agree here.  And in the end, what I really really want to
avoid is every distribution (or similar grouping of stuff) coming up
with N different ways to solve the problem of "how do I get the user
the right device tree to go with $whatever board they happen to be
running".  If the clever solution everyone comes up with is some other
container that's not FIT, that's fine, patches welcome and happily
reviewed for whatever the solution is.  I just don't want people
thinking this is a problem that hasn't been thought of before.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=vnlO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:

> On 02/21/2013 12:25 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
> [snip]
> >>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
> >> 
> >> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying
> >> to offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for
> >> everyone.  Or it gets rejected here too and distros will come up
> >> with their N different ways to try and provide easier experiences
> >> to the end user.
> > 
> > Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that
> > every board will start shipping with complete and correct DT
> > description, etc. But so is the state of FIT support right now.
> > That solution to make things easier for everyone should actually
> > make that DT vs kernel separation more effective and provide better
> > mechanisms for gluing the various DTBs to their respective boards,
> > and not to glue them to the kernel to populate a distro filesystem
> > with them.
> 
> I very much agree here.  And in the end, what I really really want to
> avoid is every distribution (or similar grouping of stuff) coming up
> with N different ways to solve the problem of "how do I get the user
> the right device tree to go with $whatever board they happen to be
> running".

DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
must not deter people from doing the right thing.

> If the clever solution everyone comes up with is some other container 
> that's not FIT, that's fine, patches welcome and happily reviewed for 
> whatever the solution is.  I just don't want people thinking this is a 
> problem that hasn't been thought of before.

Ideally, there should be no such containers.  You should simply pick any 
kernel, or install your distro of choice, and run that on any "DT ready" 
hardware. A distro could list the minimum version of a DTB some 
particular boards were tested with, just like they sometimes do for some 
PC BIOSes.  That said, maybe some provision for DTB versioning would be 
a good idea if not done already.


Nicolas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:

> On 02/21/2013 12:25 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
> [snip]
> >>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
> >> 
> >> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying
> >> to offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for
> >> everyone.  Or it gets rejected here too and distros will come up
> >> with their N different ways to try and provide easier experiences
> >> to the end user.
> > 
> > Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that
> > every board will start shipping with complete and correct DT
> > description, etc. But so is the state of FIT support right now.
> > That solution to make things easier for everyone should actually
> > make that DT vs kernel separation more effective and provide better
> > mechanisms for gluing the various DTBs to their respective boards,
> > and not to glue them to the kernel to populate a distro filesystem
> > with them.
> 
> I very much agree here.  And in the end, what I really really want to
> avoid is every distribution (or similar grouping of stuff) coming up
> with N different ways to solve the problem of "how do I get the user
> the right device tree to go with $whatever board they happen to be
> running".

DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
must not deter people from doing the right thing.

> If the clever solution everyone comes up with is some other container 
> that's not FIT, that's fine, patches welcome and happily reviewed for 
> whatever the solution is.  I just don't want people thinking this is a 
> problem that hasn't been thought of before.

Ideally, there should be no such containers.  You should simply pick any 
kernel, or install your distro of choice, and run that on any "DT ready" 
hardware. A distro could list the minimum version of a DTB some 
particular boards were tested with, just like they sometimes do for some 
PC BIOSes.  That said, maybe some provision for DTB versioning would be 
a good idea if not done already.


Nicolas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:

> On 02/21/2013 12:25 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
> [snip]
> >>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
> >> 
> >> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying
> >> to offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for
> >> everyone.  Or it gets rejected here too and distros will come up
> >> with their N different ways to try and provide easier experiences
> >> to the end user.
> > 
> > Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that
> > every board will start shipping with complete and correct DT
> > description, etc. But so is the state of FIT support right now.
> > That solution to make things easier for everyone should actually
> > make that DT vs kernel separation more effective and provide better
> > mechanisms for gluing the various DTBs to their respective boards,
> > and not to glue them to the kernel to populate a distro filesystem
> > with them.
> 
> I very much agree here.  And in the end, what I really really want to
> avoid is every distribution (or similar grouping of stuff) coming up
> with N different ways to solve the problem of "how do I get the user
> the right device tree to go with $whatever board they happen to be
> running".

DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
must not deter people from doing the right thing.

> If the clever solution everyone comes up with is some other container 
> that's not FIT, that's fine, patches welcome and happily reviewed for 
> whatever the solution is.  I just don't want people thinking this is a 
> problem that hasn't been thought of before.

Ideally, there should be no such containers.  You should simply pick any 
kernel, or install your distro of choice, and run that on any "DT ready" 
hardware. A distro could list the minimum version of a DTB some 
particular boards were tested with, just like they sometimes do for some 
PC BIOSes.  That said, maybe some provision for DTB versioning would be 
a good idea if not done already.


Nicolas

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 12:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
>> On 02/21/2013 12:25 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
>>>>
>>>> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying
>>>> to offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for
>>>> everyone.  Or it gets rejected here too and distros will come up
>>>> with their N different ways to try and provide easier experiences
>>>> to the end user.
>>>
>>> Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that
>>> every board will start shipping with complete and correct DT
>>> description, etc. But so is the state of FIT support right now.
>>> That solution to make things easier for everyone should actually
>>> make that DT vs kernel separation more effective and provide better
>>> mechanisms for gluing the various DTBs to their respective boards,
>>> and not to glue them to the kernel to populate a distro filesystem
>>> with them.
>>
>> I very much agree here.  And in the end, what I really really want to
>> avoid is every distribution (or similar grouping of stuff) coming up
>> with N different ways to solve the problem of "how do I get the user
>> the right device tree to go with $whatever board they happen to be
>> running".
> 
> DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
> It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
> which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
> files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
> must not deter people from doing the right thing.

The guidance that has been given in the past is that the kernel zImage
and DTB /must/ be stored "in the same location", whether that means the
/boot filesystem, flash partitions, or whatever, so that if required,
the kernel and DTB can be updated at the same time, and using the same
process, so it's guaranteed to be easy enough to update the DTB if you
already know how to update the kernel.

Has that guidance changed?

Also, how can the OEM provide a DTB? The distro is responsible for
installing all the filesystem content. There's no defined way of passing
a DTB from some pre-bootloader firmware into the bootloader and through
to the kernel; the only way to get a DTB to the kernel right now is for
the bootloader to load it itself (either as part of a single file, or as
a separate file) and pass it to the kernel. So, there's really no way
for an OEM to provide a DTB in a BIOS-like fashion.

Why shouldn't the OEM just provide their *.dts files, and people can
either compile them and put them into /boot, or distros can package them
and the package will install them into /boot. That's extremely simple
and while each distro will have to create their own packaging script,
that's something they already know how to do, and a package that just
dumps a file onto a disk is extremely simple, so people wouldn't have to
go inventing distro-specific solutions.

If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
extra build tools at all.

>> If the clever solution everyone comes up with is some other container 
>> that's not FIT, that's fine, patches welcome and happily reviewed for 
>> whatever the solution is.  I just don't want people thinking this is a 
>> problem that hasn't been thought of before.
> 
> Ideally, there should be no such containers.  You should simply pick any 
> kernel, or install your distro of choice, and run that on any "DT ready" 
> hardware. A distro could list the minimum version of a DTB some 
> particular boards were tested with, just like they sometimes do for some 
> PC BIOSes.  That said, maybe some provision for DTB versioning would be 
> a good idea if not done already.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 12:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
>> On 02/21/2013 12:25 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
>>>>
>>>> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying
>>>> to offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for
>>>> everyone.  Or it gets rejected here too and distros will come up
>>>> with their N different ways to try and provide easier experiences
>>>> to the end user.
>>>
>>> Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that
>>> every board will start shipping with complete and correct DT
>>> description, etc. But so is the state of FIT support right now.
>>> That solution to make things easier for everyone should actually
>>> make that DT vs kernel separation more effective and provide better
>>> mechanisms for gluing the various DTBs to their respective boards,
>>> and not to glue them to the kernel to populate a distro filesystem
>>> with them.
>>
>> I very much agree here.  And in the end, what I really really want to
>> avoid is every distribution (or similar grouping of stuff) coming up
>> with N different ways to solve the problem of "how do I get the user
>> the right device tree to go with $whatever board they happen to be
>> running".
> 
> DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
> It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
> which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
> files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
> must not deter people from doing the right thing.

The guidance that has been given in the past is that the kernel zImage
and DTB /must/ be stored "in the same location", whether that means the
/boot filesystem, flash partitions, or whatever, so that if required,
the kernel and DTB can be updated at the same time, and using the same
process, so it's guaranteed to be easy enough to update the DTB if you
already know how to update the kernel.

Has that guidance changed?

Also, how can the OEM provide a DTB? The distro is responsible for
installing all the filesystem content. There's no defined way of passing
a DTB from some pre-bootloader firmware into the bootloader and through
to the kernel; the only way to get a DTB to the kernel right now is for
the bootloader to load it itself (either as part of a single file, or as
a separate file) and pass it to the kernel. So, there's really no way
for an OEM to provide a DTB in a BIOS-like fashion.

Why shouldn't the OEM just provide their *.dts files, and people can
either compile them and put them into /boot, or distros can package them
and the package will install them into /boot. That's extremely simple
and while each distro will have to create their own packaging script,
that's something they already know how to do, and a package that just
dumps a file onto a disk is extremely simple, so people wouldn't have to
go inventing distro-specific solutions.

If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
extra build tools at all.

>> If the clever solution everyone comes up with is some other container 
>> that's not FIT, that's fine, patches welcome and happily reviewed for 
>> whatever the solution is.  I just don't want people thinking this is a 
>> problem that hasn't been thought of before.
> 
> Ideally, there should be no such containers.  You should simply pick any 
> kernel, or install your distro of choice, and run that on any "DT ready" 
> hardware. A distro could list the minimum version of a DTB some 
> particular boards were tested with, just like they sometimes do for some 
> PC BIOSes.  That said, maybe some provision for DTB versioning would be 
> a good idea if not done already.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 12:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
>> On 02/21/2013 12:25 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>> uboot dug _itself_ into this hole.  It's uboot's problem.
>>>>
>>>> A whole lot  of people dug this particular hole.  Joel is trying
>>>> to offer up a solution that maybe makes things easier for
>>>> everyone.  Or it gets rejected here too and distros will come up
>>>> with their N different ways to try and provide easier experiences
>>>> to the end user.
>>>
>>> Nothing being perfect, it is probably unreasonable to think that
>>> every board will start shipping with complete and correct DT
>>> description, etc. But so is the state of FIT support right now.
>>> That solution to make things easier for everyone should actually
>>> make that DT vs kernel separation more effective and provide better
>>> mechanisms for gluing the various DTBs to their respective boards,
>>> and not to glue them to the kernel to populate a distro filesystem
>>> with them.
>>
>> I very much agree here.  And in the end, what I really really want to
>> avoid is every distribution (or similar grouping of stuff) coming up
>> with N different ways to solve the problem of "how do I get the user
>> the right device tree to go with $whatever board they happen to be
>> running".
> 
> DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
> It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
> which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
> files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
> must not deter people from doing the right thing.

The guidance that has been given in the past is that the kernel zImage
and DTB /must/ be stored "in the same location", whether that means the
/boot filesystem, flash partitions, or whatever, so that if required,
the kernel and DTB can be updated at the same time, and using the same
process, so it's guaranteed to be easy enough to update the DTB if you
already know how to update the kernel.

Has that guidance changed?

Also, how can the OEM provide a DTB? The distro is responsible for
installing all the filesystem content. There's no defined way of passing
a DTB from some pre-bootloader firmware into the bootloader and through
to the kernel; the only way to get a DTB to the kernel right now is for
the bootloader to load it itself (either as part of a single file, or as
a separate file) and pass it to the kernel. So, there's really no way
for an OEM to provide a DTB in a BIOS-like fashion.

Why shouldn't the OEM just provide their *.dts files, and people can
either compile them and put them into /boot, or distros can package them
and the package will install them into /boot. That's extremely simple
and while each distro will have to create their own packaging script,
that's something they already know how to do, and a package that just
dumps a file onto a disk is extremely simple, so people wouldn't have to
go inventing distro-specific solutions.

If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
extra build tools at all.

>> If the clever solution everyone comes up with is some other container 
>> that's not FIT, that's fine, patches welcome and happily reviewed for 
>> whatever the solution is.  I just don't want people thinking this is a 
>> problem that hasn't been thought of before.
> 
> Ideally, there should be no such containers.  You should simply pick any 
> kernel, or install your distro of choice, and run that on any "DT ready" 
> hardware. A distro could list the minimum version of a DTB some 
> particular boards were tested with, just like they sometimes do for some 
> PC BIOSes.  That said, maybe some provision for DTB versioning would be 
> a good idea if not done already.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Stephen,

In message <5126778A.4040705@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
> extra build tools at all.

If the world was so simple, we could eventually do that.  But it ain't
so.  Just consider the typical "diskless" system that boots over the
network, using DHCP + TFTP, where the server will provide a single
file only.  Or systems that require sub-second boot times, where you
don't want to spend time in running boot scripts. etc.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
We see things not as they are, but as we are.       - H. M. Tomlinson

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Stephen,

In message <5126778A.4040705@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
> extra build tools at all.

If the world was so simple, we could eventually do that.  But it ain't
so.  Just consider the typical "diskless" system that boots over the
network, using DHCP + TFTP, where the server will provide a single
file only.  Or systems that require sub-second boot times, where you
don't want to spend time in running boot scripts. etc.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
We see things not as they are, but as we are.       - H. M. Tomlinson

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Stephen,

In message <5126778A.4040705@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
> extra build tools at all.

If the world was so simple, we could eventually do that.  But it ain't
so.  Just consider the typical "diskless" system that boots over the
network, using DHCP + TFTP, where the server will provide a single
file only.  Or systems that require sub-second boot times, where you
don't want to spend time in running boot scripts. etc.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
We see things not as they are, but as we are.       - H. M. Tomlinson

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 12:57 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stephen,
> 
> In message <5126778A.4040705@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>>
>> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
>> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
>> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
>> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
>> extra build tools at all.
> 
> If the world was so simple, we could eventually do that.  But it ain't
> so.  Just consider the typical "diskless" system that boots over the
> network, using DHCP + TFTP, where the server will provide a single
> file only.

I use TFTP routinely to boot my boards, and load separate zImage and DTB
files from the server without issue, using the exact same filenames as
when I load them from a /boot directory on eMMC or SD.

> Or systems that require sub-second boot times, where you
> don't want to spend time in running boot scripts. etc.

Admittedly this is conjecture, but surely the actual IO time to load a
zImage vastly vastly dwarfs the time take to parse an "ext2load" or
"fsload" command to do so, so running scripts to do this isn't relevant.
And besides, there's always some script, whether it's a boot.scr file or
built into the U-Boot environment.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 12:57 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stephen,
> 
> In message <5126778A.4040705@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>>
>> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
>> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
>> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
>> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
>> extra build tools at all.
> 
> If the world was so simple, we could eventually do that.  But it ain't
> so.  Just consider the typical "diskless" system that boots over the
> network, using DHCP + TFTP, where the server will provide a single
> file only.

I use TFTP routinely to boot my boards, and load separate zImage and DTB
files from the server without issue, using the exact same filenames as
when I load them from a /boot directory on eMMC or SD.

> Or systems that require sub-second boot times, where you
> don't want to spend time in running boot scripts. etc.

Admittedly this is conjecture, but surely the actual IO time to load a
zImage vastly vastly dwarfs the time take to parse an "ext2load" or
"fsload" command to do so, so running scripts to do this isn't relevant.
And besides, there's always some script, whether it's a boot.scr file or
built into the U-Boot environment.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 12:57 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stephen,
> 
> In message <5126778A.4040705@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>>
>> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
>> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
>> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
>> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
>> extra build tools at all.
> 
> If the world was so simple, we could eventually do that.  But it ain't
> so.  Just consider the typical "diskless" system that boots over the
> network, using DHCP + TFTP, where the server will provide a single
> file only.

I use TFTP routinely to boot my boards, and load separate zImage and DTB
files from the server without issue, using the exact same filenames as
when I load them from a /boot directory on eMMC or SD.

> Or systems that require sub-second boot times, where you
> don't want to spend time in running boot scripts. etc.

Admittedly this is conjecture, but surely the actual IO time to load a
zImage vastly vastly dwarfs the time take to parse an "ext2load" or
"fsload" command to do so, so running scripts to do this isn't relevant.
And besides, there's always some script, whether it's a boot.scr file or
built into the U-Boot environment.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Stephen,

In message <51267E0A.3060204@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> > so.  Just consider the typical "diskless" system that boots over the
> > network, using DHCP + TFTP, where the server will provide a single
> > file only.
> 
> I use TFTP routinely to boot my boards, and load separate zImage and DTB
> files from the server without issue, using the exact same filenames as
> when I load them from a /boot directory on eMMC or SD.

You may do this in a development environment; I do the same routinely
here.  But there are users out there who commission large
installations like that; they simply do not want to have multiple
files for each system (and not even for each configuration).

> And besides, there's always some script, whether it's a boot.scr file or
> built into the U-Boot environment.

Not really - especially not when booting using Falcon mode.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
If you can't beat it or corrupt it, you pretend it was your  idea  in
the first place.                 - Terry Pratchett, _Guards! Guards!_

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Stephen,

In message <51267E0A.3060204@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> > so.  Just consider the typical "diskless" system that boots over the
> > network, using DHCP + TFTP, where the server will provide a single
> > file only.
> 
> I use TFTP routinely to boot my boards, and load separate zImage and DTB
> files from the server without issue, using the exact same filenames as
> when I load them from a /boot directory on eMMC or SD.

You may do this in a development environment; I do the same routinely
here.  But there are users out there who commission large
installations like that; they simply do not want to have multiple
files for each system (and not even for each configuration).

> And besides, there's always some script, whether it's a boot.scr file or
> built into the U-Boot environment.

Not really - especially not when booting using Falcon mode.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
If you can't beat it or corrupt it, you pretend it was your  idea  in
the first place.                 - Terry Pratchett, _Guards! Guards!_

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Stephen,

In message <51267E0A.3060204@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> > so.  Just consider the typical "diskless" system that boots over the
> > network, using DHCP + TFTP, where the server will provide a single
> > file only.
> 
> I use TFTP routinely to boot my boards, and load separate zImage and DTB
> files from the server without issue, using the exact same filenames as
> when I load them from a /boot directory on eMMC or SD.

You may do this in a development environment; I do the same routinely
here.  But there are users out there who commission large
installations like that; they simply do not want to have multiple
files for each system (and not even for each configuration).

> And besides, there's always some script, whether it's a boot.scr file or
> built into the U-Boot environment.

Not really - especially not when booting using Falcon mode.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
If you can't beat it or corrupt it, you pretend it was your  idea  in
the first place.                 - Terry Pratchett, _Guards! Guards!_

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:

> On 02/21/2013 12:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
> > It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
> > which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
> > files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
> > must not deter people from doing the right thing.
> 
> The guidance that has been given in the past is that the kernel zImage
> and DTB /must/ be stored "in the same location", whether that means the
> /boot filesystem, flash partitions, or whatever, so that if required,
> the kernel and DTB can be updated at the same time, and using the same
> process, so it's guaranteed to be easy enough to update the DTB if you
> already know how to update the kernel.

Where were such guidance given?

I don't think this is wise anyway.  The DT content for a given piece of 
hardware should stabilize quickly, while the kernel can be updated for 
years.  So there is no need for making the DTB update into the same 
process as the kernel.

And as I stated earlier, the distros will care about kernel updates, but 
they shouldn't have to care about DTB updates.

The only reason why we do have to update DTBs frequently is because the 
whole thing is still being developed and established.  But frequent DTB 
updates are not the end goal, and therefore we shouldn't design 
installation and update mechanisms around the current state of affairs 
which is not meant to persist.

> Has that guidance changed?

Consider this as my plea to have it changed.

> Also, how can the OEM provide a DTB? The distro is responsible for
> installing all the filesystem content.

And that's probably not a good idea either.

> There's no defined way of passing
> a DTB from some pre-bootloader firmware into the bootloader and through
> to the kernel;

That doesn't have to stay that way, does it?  Maybe those efforts put on 
things like FIT or the like could be applied to this problem instead?

Yet that depends how you define a pre-bootloader and a bootloader.  
Some people call UEFI the bootloader and grub or u-boot running on top 
as the "second stage" bootloader.  I've heard people talking about 
making u-boot into a _user_ of the DTB in addition to the kernel, which 
would make some sense.  In that case, the second stage bootloader could 
be somewhat generic as well.  But if that layer is generic, then there 
must be some kind of standard adaptation layer or API provided by the 
first stage bootloader to the second stage bootloader.  Passing on 
some hardware configuration payload would be part of that API.  

Sidenote: there is noise about using ACPI instead of DT on ARM servers 
for example, so that's another reason why distributions should not 
engage into this responsibility too much.

And obviously the DTB has to be tied to the machine specific boot layer.  
And the method to retrieve it would, obviously, be machine specific at 
that point.  This doesn't have to come frfom the filesystem used by the 
final operating system.

> the only way to get a DTB to the kernel right now is for
> the bootloader to load it itself (either as part of a single file, or as
> a separate file) and pass it to the kernel. So, there's really no way
> for an OEM to provide a DTB in a BIOS-like fashion.

That will have to change.

> Why shouldn't the OEM just provide their *.dts files, and people can
> either compile them and put them into /boot, or distros can package them
> and the package will install them into /boot. That's extremely simple
> and while each distro will have to create their own packaging script,
> that's something they already know how to do, and a package that just
> dumps a file onto a disk is extremely simple, so people wouldn't have to
> go inventing distro-specific solutions.

Because that shouldn't be the distro's business.  Because the distros 
shouldn't have to be aware of all possible DTBs around and gather them 
on their install media and figure out during installation which one to 
use, or configure the bootloader so it knows which one to pass back to 
the kernel, when the OEMs may as well just ship the right one with their 
hardware without the distro to care at all.  Because a distro should be 
installable on some future hardware that didn't exist when that distro 
was put together.  Because, ideally, you should be able to pop out the 
disk (or SD card) from device X and put it into device Y and just boot 
without changing anything.

The device tree data is describing hardware, it should be tied to the 
hardware, not to the distribution.  Hardware doesn't change, kernels and 
distros do.

> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
> extra build tools at all.

No, life isn't that simple.  First, not everyone wants to use U-Boot. 
And even if U-Boot was universally used/loved, there is no way you could 
have a boot.scr that would work for every board.  In some cases there 
might not even a usable device or filesystem for U-Boot to find the 
/boot directory.  Alternate bootloaders might not have a btrfs driver 
for digging into the installed distro filesystem.  Etc.

Whereas, if the bootloader simply provides a DTB using any method deemed 
appropriate by the OEM, then the kernel and therefore the distros are 
freed from this extra and avoidable maintenance cost.  The _only_ 
contract between the bootloader and the kernel/distro should be this 
passing of a DTB (and initrd) in a standardized way.

Extending this contract to include a given /boot directory on a specific 
filesystem type, a preformatted boot.scr with predetermined variables, 
and other similar high-level requirements is going to make a system with 
zero flexibility and susceptible to boot failure as soon as one little 
detail gets messed up. Such system would simplify some people's life of 
course, but is going to signify hell for others.

Then, some distros will support a certain list of hardware devices while 
other distros won't because of different release schedule, etc.  That 
issue is no more if the DTB comes with the hardware.


Nicolas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:

> On 02/21/2013 12:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
> > It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
> > which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
> > files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
> > must not deter people from doing the right thing.
> 
> The guidance that has been given in the past is that the kernel zImage
> and DTB /must/ be stored "in the same location", whether that means the
> /boot filesystem, flash partitions, or whatever, so that if required,
> the kernel and DTB can be updated at the same time, and using the same
> process, so it's guaranteed to be easy enough to update the DTB if you
> already know how to update the kernel.

Where were such guidance given?

I don't think this is wise anyway.  The DT content for a given piece of 
hardware should stabilize quickly, while the kernel can be updated for 
years.  So there is no need for making the DTB update into the same 
process as the kernel.

And as I stated earlier, the distros will care about kernel updates, but 
they shouldn't have to care about DTB updates.

The only reason why we do have to update DTBs frequently is because the 
whole thing is still being developed and established.  But frequent DTB 
updates are not the end goal, and therefore we shouldn't design 
installation and update mechanisms around the current state of affairs 
which is not meant to persist.

> Has that guidance changed?

Consider this as my plea to have it changed.

> Also, how can the OEM provide a DTB? The distro is responsible for
> installing all the filesystem content.

And that's probably not a good idea either.

> There's no defined way of passing
> a DTB from some pre-bootloader firmware into the bootloader and through
> to the kernel;

That doesn't have to stay that way, does it?  Maybe those efforts put on 
things like FIT or the like could be applied to this problem instead?

Yet that depends how you define a pre-bootloader and a bootloader.  
Some people call UEFI the bootloader and grub or u-boot running on top 
as the "second stage" bootloader.  I've heard people talking about 
making u-boot into a _user_ of the DTB in addition to the kernel, which 
would make some sense.  In that case, the second stage bootloader could 
be somewhat generic as well.  But if that layer is generic, then there 
must be some kind of standard adaptation layer or API provided by the 
first stage bootloader to the second stage bootloader.  Passing on 
some hardware configuration payload would be part of that API.  

Sidenote: there is noise about using ACPI instead of DT on ARM servers 
for example, so that's another reason why distributions should not 
engage into this responsibility too much.

And obviously the DTB has to be tied to the machine specific boot layer.  
And the method to retrieve it would, obviously, be machine specific at 
that point.  This doesn't have to come frfom the filesystem used by the 
final operating system.

> the only way to get a DTB to the kernel right now is for
> the bootloader to load it itself (either as part of a single file, or as
> a separate file) and pass it to the kernel. So, there's really no way
> for an OEM to provide a DTB in a BIOS-like fashion.

That will have to change.

> Why shouldn't the OEM just provide their *.dts files, and people can
> either compile them and put them into /boot, or distros can package them
> and the package will install them into /boot. That's extremely simple
> and while each distro will have to create their own packaging script,
> that's something they already know how to do, and a package that just
> dumps a file onto a disk is extremely simple, so people wouldn't have to
> go inventing distro-specific solutions.

Because that shouldn't be the distro's business.  Because the distros 
shouldn't have to be aware of all possible DTBs around and gather them 
on their install media and figure out during installation which one to 
use, or configure the bootloader so it knows which one to pass back to 
the kernel, when the OEMs may as well just ship the right one with their 
hardware without the distro to care at all.  Because a distro should be 
installable on some future hardware that didn't exist when that distro 
was put together.  Because, ideally, you should be able to pop out the 
disk (or SD card) from device X and put it into device Y and just boot 
without changing anything.

The device tree data is describing hardware, it should be tied to the 
hardware, not to the distribution.  Hardware doesn't change, kernels and 
distros do.

> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
> extra build tools at all.

No, life isn't that simple.  First, not everyone wants to use U-Boot. 
And even if U-Boot was universally used/loved, there is no way you could 
have a boot.scr that would work for every board.  In some cases there 
might not even a usable device or filesystem for U-Boot to find the 
/boot directory.  Alternate bootloaders might not have a btrfs driver 
for digging into the installed distro filesystem.  Etc.

Whereas, if the bootloader simply provides a DTB using any method deemed 
appropriate by the OEM, then the kernel and therefore the distros are 
freed from this extra and avoidable maintenance cost.  The _only_ 
contract between the bootloader and the kernel/distro should be this 
passing of a DTB (and initrd) in a standardized way.

Extending this contract to include a given /boot directory on a specific 
filesystem type, a preformatted boot.scr with predetermined variables, 
and other similar high-level requirements is going to make a system with 
zero flexibility and susceptible to boot failure as soon as one little 
detail gets messed up. Such system would simplify some people's life of 
course, but is going to signify hell for others.

Then, some distros will support a certain list of hardware devices while 
other distros won't because of different release schedule, etc.  That 
issue is no more if the DTB comes with the hardware.


Nicolas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:

> On 02/21/2013 12:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
> > It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
> > which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
> > files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
> > must not deter people from doing the right thing.
> 
> The guidance that has been given in the past is that the kernel zImage
> and DTB /must/ be stored "in the same location", whether that means the
> /boot filesystem, flash partitions, or whatever, so that if required,
> the kernel and DTB can be updated at the same time, and using the same
> process, so it's guaranteed to be easy enough to update the DTB if you
> already know how to update the kernel.

Where were such guidance given?

I don't think this is wise anyway.  The DT content for a given piece of 
hardware should stabilize quickly, while the kernel can be updated for 
years.  So there is no need for making the DTB update into the same 
process as the kernel.

And as I stated earlier, the distros will care about kernel updates, but 
they shouldn't have to care about DTB updates.

The only reason why we do have to update DTBs frequently is because the 
whole thing is still being developed and established.  But frequent DTB 
updates are not the end goal, and therefore we shouldn't design 
installation and update mechanisms around the current state of affairs 
which is not meant to persist.

> Has that guidance changed?

Consider this as my plea to have it changed.

> Also, how can the OEM provide a DTB? The distro is responsible for
> installing all the filesystem content.

And that's probably not a good idea either.

> There's no defined way of passing
> a DTB from some pre-bootloader firmware into the bootloader and through
> to the kernel;

That doesn't have to stay that way, does it?  Maybe those efforts put on 
things like FIT or the like could be applied to this problem instead?

Yet that depends how you define a pre-bootloader and a bootloader.  
Some people call UEFI the bootloader and grub or u-boot running on top 
as the "second stage" bootloader.  I've heard people talking about 
making u-boot into a _user_ of the DTB in addition to the kernel, which 
would make some sense.  In that case, the second stage bootloader could 
be somewhat generic as well.  But if that layer is generic, then there 
must be some kind of standard adaptation layer or API provided by the 
first stage bootloader to the second stage bootloader.  Passing on 
some hardware configuration payload would be part of that API.  

Sidenote: there is noise about using ACPI instead of DT on ARM servers 
for example, so that's another reason why distributions should not 
engage into this responsibility too much.

And obviously the DTB has to be tied to the machine specific boot layer.  
And the method to retrieve it would, obviously, be machine specific at 
that point.  This doesn't have to come frfom the filesystem used by the 
final operating system.

> the only way to get a DTB to the kernel right now is for
> the bootloader to load it itself (either as part of a single file, or as
> a separate file) and pass it to the kernel. So, there's really no way
> for an OEM to provide a DTB in a BIOS-like fashion.

That will have to change.

> Why shouldn't the OEM just provide their *.dts files, and people can
> either compile them and put them into /boot, or distros can package them
> and the package will install them into /boot. That's extremely simple
> and while each distro will have to create their own packaging script,
> that's something they already know how to do, and a package that just
> dumps a file onto a disk is extremely simple, so people wouldn't have to
> go inventing distro-specific solutions.

Because that shouldn't be the distro's business.  Because the distros 
shouldn't have to be aware of all possible DTBs around and gather them 
on their install media and figure out during installation which one to 
use, or configure the bootloader so it knows which one to pass back to 
the kernel, when the OEMs may as well just ship the right one with their 
hardware without the distro to care at all.  Because a distro should be 
installable on some future hardware that didn't exist when that distro 
was put together.  Because, ideally, you should be able to pop out the 
disk (or SD card) from device X and put it into device Y and just boot 
without changing anything.

The device tree data is describing hardware, it should be tied to the 
hardware, not to the distribution.  Hardware doesn't change, kernels and 
distros do.

> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
> extra build tools at all.

No, life isn't that simple.  First, not everyone wants to use U-Boot. 
And even if U-Boot was universally used/loved, there is no way you could 
have a boot.scr that would work for every board.  In some cases there 
might not even a usable device or filesystem for U-Boot to find the 
/boot directory.  Alternate bootloaders might not have a btrfs driver 
for digging into the installed distro filesystem.  Etc.

Whereas, if the bootloader simply provides a DTB using any method deemed 
appropriate by the OEM, then the kernel and therefore the distros are 
freed from this extra and avoidable maintenance cost.  The _only_ 
contract between the bootloader and the kernel/distro should be this 
passing of a DTB (and initrd) in a standardized way.

Extending this contract to include a given /boot directory on a specific 
filesystem type, a preformatted boot.scr with predetermined variables, 
and other similar high-level requirements is going to make a system with 
zero flexibility and susceptible to boot failure as soon as one little 
detail gets messed up. Such system would simplify some people's life of 
course, but is going to signify hell for others.

Then, some distros will support a certain list of hardware devices while 
other distros won't because of different release schedule, etc.  That 
issue is no more if the DTB comes with the hardware.


Nicolas

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 02:18 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
>> On 02/21/2013 12:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
>>> It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
>>> which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
>>> files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
>>> must not deter people from doing the right thing.
>>
>> The guidance that has been given in the past is that the kernel zImage
>> and DTB /must/ be stored "in the same location", whether that means the
>> /boot filesystem, flash partitions, or whatever, so that if required,
>> the kernel and DTB can be updated at the same time, and using the same
>> process, so it's guaranteed to be easy enough to update the DTB if you
>> already know how to update the kernel.
> 
> Where were such guidance given?

IIRC, it's been discussed a number of times on the Linux ARM kernel
mailing list and at the various ARM workshops at kernel summit and/or
Linaro Connect. It has been a while, so maybe the advice was simply
supposed to age out, but I certainly haven't seen any explicit
indication that the advice was temporary or rescinded.

> The only reason why we do have to update DTBs frequently is because the 
> whole thing is still being developed and established.  But frequent DTB 
> updates are not the end goal, and therefore we shouldn't design 
> installation and update mechanisms around the current state of affairs 
> which is not meant to persist.

It will always be under development.

People will make mistakes and want to fix them.

Someone will want to use a previously unsupported feature of some HW and
then write the DT bindings for that feature for the first time. E.g.
Tegra's one-wire controller isn't that commonly used, so we have no
binding for it yet despite it being maybe a couple years after starting
DT work for Tegra. The AC'97 was only recently supported.

Now I agree that this probably will settle down eventually. However, HW
will have been widely distributed well before the DT bindings are
feature-complete and bug-free. Any solution needs to take that into
account, rather than only attempting to solve the situation after the
hardware is obsolete and hence the bindings are stable.

>> There's no defined way of passing
>> a DTB from some pre-bootloader firmware into the bootloader and through
>> to the kernel;
> 
> That doesn't have to stay that way, does it?  Maybe those efforts put on 
> things like FIT or the like could be applied to this problem instead?

Perhaps. But where can the DTB be stored?

a) In the system's boot flash alongside U-Boot, or at least some
first-/early-stage firmware that can determine where in RAM it was
loaded to, and pass it to some later-stage software in a standard fashion.

b) In a filesystem, alongside the kernel.

c) In some other flash device, or partition.

There often isn't any such flash device/partition for (c), so that
option is out as a /general/ rule.

(a) would require a firmware upgrade process in order to upgrade the
DTB. Using this option is very explicitly against the guidance I was
talking about a few paragraphs up.

So that just leaves (b). And in this case, you may as well use U-Boot's
(or any other bootloader) ability to load foo.dtb just like it loads zImage.

> Yet that depends how you define a pre-bootloader and a bootloader.  
> Some people call UEFI the bootloader and grub or u-boot running on top 
> as the "second stage" bootloader.  I've heard people talking about 
> making u-boot into a _user_ of the DTB in addition to the kernel, which 
> would make some sense.

For better or worse, that is true for upstream U-Boot on Tegra. The DTB
is built into U-Boot in this case, and is a different DTB than what's
passed to the kernel, because U-Boot has historically not used identical
DT bindings to the real reviewed bindings as defined by the kernel's
Documentation/devicetree/bindings. It's getting better, but there is
still some way to go. The same is probably true for Exynos5, but I
haven't investigated the situation there in detail.

...
> Sidenote: there is noise about using ACPI instead of DT on ARM servers 
> for example, so that's another reason why distributions should not 
> engage into this responsibility too much.

Hmmm. That sounds a lot like making most of my last 2 years' work
redundant:-( It'd be a big pity to have that all wasted.

...
>> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
>> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
>> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
>> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
>> extra build tools at all.
> 
> No, life isn't that simple.  First, not everyone wants to use U-Boot.

Sure.

> And even if U-Boot was universally used/loved, there is no way you could 
> have a boot.scr that would work for every board. 

I disagree there. The following should work for anything, with U-boot's
boot script set to automatically search for this boot.scr on available
boot media, load, and execute it:

> # similar comment for the actual partition number
> setenv rootpart 1
> part uuid ${devtype} ${devnum}:${rootpart} uuid
>
> # Needs to be auto-generated by a distro boot.scr creation script,
> # just like grub.cfg is on x86:
> # bootargs_extra would be HW-specific parameters that U-Boot's default
> # environment provides, if any are required (hopefully not)
> setenv bootargs ... root=PARTUUID=${uuid} ${bootargs_extra}
> 
> ext2load ${devtype} ${devnum}:${rootpart} ${kernel_addr_r} /boot/zImage
> ext2load ${devtype} ${devnum}:${rootpart} ${fdt_addr_r} /boot/${soc}-${board}.dtb
> bootz ${kernel_addr_r} - ${fdt_addr_r}

And yes, "part uuid" and "bootz" are new, but recall that FIT support
isn't available everywhere either, so you can't use that argument
against it.

And yes, some people creating dedicated embedded systems might not want
a boot script on disk, but for a general-purpose setup running arbitrary
Linux distros, this seems like the most flexible thing to do, just like
Grub's grub.cfg.


> In some cases there 
> might not even a usable device or filesystem for U-Boot to find the 
> /boot directory.  Alternate bootloaders might not have a btrfs driver 
> for digging into the installed distro filesystem.  Etc.

/boot often has constraints dictated by the bootloader, e.g. must be
ext2 not some other fancy filesystem on x86.

If there's no filesystem for U-Boot/... to load a zImage/... from, then
you're already outside the realm of a general purpose machine that
supports arbitrary Linux distros, and into the realm of custom embedded
systems. Those will always require some custom non-generic work to get
them too boot the way you want. But the system creator/integrator gets
to do that, not the Linux distro.

> Whereas, if the bootloader simply provides a DTB using any method deemed 
> appropriate by the OEM, then the kernel and therefore the distros are 
> freed from this extra and avoidable maintenance cost.  The _only_ 
> contract between the bootloader and the kernel/distro should be this 
> passing of a DTB (and initrd) in a standardized way.

That contract isn't influenced by how/where the bootloader obtains the
DTB, so that statement isn't relevant to the use of FIT.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 02:18 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
>> On 02/21/2013 12:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
>>> It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
>>> which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
>>> files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
>>> must not deter people from doing the right thing.
>>
>> The guidance that has been given in the past is that the kernel zImage
>> and DTB /must/ be stored "in the same location", whether that means the
>> /boot filesystem, flash partitions, or whatever, so that if required,
>> the kernel and DTB can be updated at the same time, and using the same
>> process, so it's guaranteed to be easy enough to update the DTB if you
>> already know how to update the kernel.
> 
> Where were such guidance given?

IIRC, it's been discussed a number of times on the Linux ARM kernel
mailing list and at the various ARM workshops at kernel summit and/or
Linaro Connect. It has been a while, so maybe the advice was simply
supposed to age out, but I certainly haven't seen any explicit
indication that the advice was temporary or rescinded.

> The only reason why we do have to update DTBs frequently is because the 
> whole thing is still being developed and established.  But frequent DTB 
> updates are not the end goal, and therefore we shouldn't design 
> installation and update mechanisms around the current state of affairs 
> which is not meant to persist.

It will always be under development.

People will make mistakes and want to fix them.

Someone will want to use a previously unsupported feature of some HW and
then write the DT bindings for that feature for the first time. E.g.
Tegra's one-wire controller isn't that commonly used, so we have no
binding for it yet despite it being maybe a couple years after starting
DT work for Tegra. The AC'97 was only recently supported.

Now I agree that this probably will settle down eventually. However, HW
will have been widely distributed well before the DT bindings are
feature-complete and bug-free. Any solution needs to take that into
account, rather than only attempting to solve the situation after the
hardware is obsolete and hence the bindings are stable.

>> There's no defined way of passing
>> a DTB from some pre-bootloader firmware into the bootloader and through
>> to the kernel;
> 
> That doesn't have to stay that way, does it?  Maybe those efforts put on 
> things like FIT or the like could be applied to this problem instead?

Perhaps. But where can the DTB be stored?

a) In the system's boot flash alongside U-Boot, or at least some
first-/early-stage firmware that can determine where in RAM it was
loaded to, and pass it to some later-stage software in a standard fashion.

b) In a filesystem, alongside the kernel.

c) In some other flash device, or partition.

There often isn't any such flash device/partition for (c), so that
option is out as a /general/ rule.

(a) would require a firmware upgrade process in order to upgrade the
DTB. Using this option is very explicitly against the guidance I was
talking about a few paragraphs up.

So that just leaves (b). And in this case, you may as well use U-Boot's
(or any other bootloader) ability to load foo.dtb just like it loads zImage.

> Yet that depends how you define a pre-bootloader and a bootloader.  
> Some people call UEFI the bootloader and grub or u-boot running on top 
> as the "second stage" bootloader.  I've heard people talking about 
> making u-boot into a _user_ of the DTB in addition to the kernel, which 
> would make some sense.

For better or worse, that is true for upstream U-Boot on Tegra. The DTB
is built into U-Boot in this case, and is a different DTB than what's
passed to the kernel, because U-Boot has historically not used identical
DT bindings to the real reviewed bindings as defined by the kernel's
Documentation/devicetree/bindings. It's getting better, but there is
still some way to go. The same is probably true for Exynos5, but I
haven't investigated the situation there in detail.

...
> Sidenote: there is noise about using ACPI instead of DT on ARM servers 
> for example, so that's another reason why distributions should not 
> engage into this responsibility too much.

Hmmm. That sounds a lot like making most of my last 2 years' work
redundant:-( It'd be a big pity to have that all wasted.

...
>> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
>> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
>> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
>> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
>> extra build tools at all.
> 
> No, life isn't that simple.  First, not everyone wants to use U-Boot.

Sure.

> And even if U-Boot was universally used/loved, there is no way you could 
> have a boot.scr that would work for every board. 

I disagree there. The following should work for anything, with U-boot's
boot script set to automatically search for this boot.scr on available
boot media, load, and execute it:

> # similar comment for the actual partition number
> setenv rootpart 1
> part uuid ${devtype} ${devnum}:${rootpart} uuid
>
> # Needs to be auto-generated by a distro boot.scr creation script,
> # just like grub.cfg is on x86:
> # bootargs_extra would be HW-specific parameters that U-Boot's default
> # environment provides, if any are required (hopefully not)
> setenv bootargs ... root=PARTUUID=${uuid} ${bootargs_extra}
> 
> ext2load ${devtype} ${devnum}:${rootpart} ${kernel_addr_r} /boot/zImage
> ext2load ${devtype} ${devnum}:${rootpart} ${fdt_addr_r} /boot/${soc}-${board}.dtb
> bootz ${kernel_addr_r} - ${fdt_addr_r}

And yes, "part uuid" and "bootz" are new, but recall that FIT support
isn't available everywhere either, so you can't use that argument
against it.

And yes, some people creating dedicated embedded systems might not want
a boot script on disk, but for a general-purpose setup running arbitrary
Linux distros, this seems like the most flexible thing to do, just like
Grub's grub.cfg.


> In some cases there 
> might not even a usable device or filesystem for U-Boot to find the 
> /boot directory.  Alternate bootloaders might not have a btrfs driver 
> for digging into the installed distro filesystem.  Etc.

/boot often has constraints dictated by the bootloader, e.g. must be
ext2 not some other fancy filesystem on x86.

If there's no filesystem for U-Boot/... to load a zImage/... from, then
you're already outside the realm of a general purpose machine that
supports arbitrary Linux distros, and into the realm of custom embedded
systems. Those will always require some custom non-generic work to get
them too boot the way you want. But the system creator/integrator gets
to do that, not the Linux distro.

> Whereas, if the bootloader simply provides a DTB using any method deemed 
> appropriate by the OEM, then the kernel and therefore the distros are 
> freed from this extra and avoidable maintenance cost.  The _only_ 
> contract between the bootloader and the kernel/distro should be this 
> passing of a DTB (and initrd) in a standardized way.

That contract isn't influenced by how/where the bootloader obtains the
DTB, so that statement isn't relevant to the use of FIT.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 02:18 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
>> On 02/21/2013 12:21 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> DT installation must be outside of the distribution's responsibilities.  
>>> It should be the OEM's responsibility, just like BIOS updates for PCs 
>>> which don't come from Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu.  Obviously, having the dts 
>>> files in the kernel tree does confuse people in that regard, but that 
>>> must not deter people from doing the right thing.
>>
>> The guidance that has been given in the past is that the kernel zImage
>> and DTB /must/ be stored "in the same location", whether that means the
>> /boot filesystem, flash partitions, or whatever, so that if required,
>> the kernel and DTB can be updated at the same time, and using the same
>> process, so it's guaranteed to be easy enough to update the DTB if you
>> already know how to update the kernel.
> 
> Where were such guidance given?

IIRC, it's been discussed a number of times on the Linux ARM kernel
mailing list and at the various ARM workshops at kernel summit and/or
Linaro Connect. It has been a while, so maybe the advice was simply
supposed to age out, but I certainly haven't seen any explicit
indication that the advice was temporary or rescinded.

> The only reason why we do have to update DTBs frequently is because the 
> whole thing is still being developed and established.  But frequent DTB 
> updates are not the end goal, and therefore we shouldn't design 
> installation and update mechanisms around the current state of affairs 
> which is not meant to persist.

It will always be under development.

People will make mistakes and want to fix them.

Someone will want to use a previously unsupported feature of some HW and
then write the DT bindings for that feature for the first time. E.g.
Tegra's one-wire controller isn't that commonly used, so we have no
binding for it yet despite it being maybe a couple years after starting
DT work for Tegra. The AC'97 was only recently supported.

Now I agree that this probably will settle down eventually. However, HW
will have been widely distributed well before the DT bindings are
feature-complete and bug-free. Any solution needs to take that into
account, rather than only attempting to solve the situation after the
hardware is obsolete and hence the bindings are stable.

>> There's no defined way of passing
>> a DTB from some pre-bootloader firmware into the bootloader and through
>> to the kernel;
> 
> That doesn't have to stay that way, does it?  Maybe those efforts put on 
> things like FIT or the like could be applied to this problem instead?

Perhaps. But where can the DTB be stored?

a) In the system's boot flash alongside U-Boot, or at least some
first-/early-stage firmware that can determine where in RAM it was
loaded to, and pass it to some later-stage software in a standard fashion.

b) In a filesystem, alongside the kernel.

c) In some other flash device, or partition.

There often isn't any such flash device/partition for (c), so that
option is out as a /general/ rule.

(a) would require a firmware upgrade process in order to upgrade the
DTB. Using this option is very explicitly against the guidance I was
talking about a few paragraphs up.

So that just leaves (b). And in this case, you may as well use U-Boot's
(or any other bootloader) ability to load foo.dtb just like it loads zImage.

> Yet that depends how you define a pre-bootloader and a bootloader.  
> Some people call UEFI the bootloader and grub or u-boot running on top 
> as the "second stage" bootloader.  I've heard people talking about 
> making u-boot into a _user_ of the DTB in addition to the kernel, which 
> would make some sense.

For better or worse, that is true for upstream U-Boot on Tegra. The DTB
is built into U-Boot in this case, and is a different DTB than what's
passed to the kernel, because U-Boot has historically not used identical
DT bindings to the real reviewed bindings as defined by the kernel's
Documentation/devicetree/bindings. It's getting better, but there is
still some way to go. The same is probably true for Exynos5, but I
haven't investigated the situation there in detail.

...
> Sidenote: there is noise about using ACPI instead of DT on ARM servers 
> for example, so that's another reason why distributions should not 
> engage into this responsibility too much.

Hmmm. That sounds a lot like making most of my last 2 years' work
redundant:-( It'd be a big pity to have that all wasted.

...
>> If U-Boot always searched a disk for e.g. /boot/boot.scr or similar and
>> just executed that, and there was a standard boot.scr that worked on all
>> boards by use of e.g. bootz, ${soc}, ${board}, then that could be
>> distro-agnostic too. And life would be simple, without the need for any
>> extra build tools at all.
> 
> No, life isn't that simple.  First, not everyone wants to use U-Boot.

Sure.

> And even if U-Boot was universally used/loved, there is no way you could 
> have a boot.scr that would work for every board. 

I disagree there. The following should work for anything, with U-boot's
boot script set to automatically search for this boot.scr on available
boot media, load, and execute it:

> # similar comment for the actual partition number
> setenv rootpart 1
> part uuid ${devtype} ${devnum}:${rootpart} uuid
>
> # Needs to be auto-generated by a distro boot.scr creation script,
> # just like grub.cfg is on x86:
> # bootargs_extra would be HW-specific parameters that U-Boot's default
> # environment provides, if any are required (hopefully not)
> setenv bootargs ... root=PARTUUID=${uuid} ${bootargs_extra}
> 
> ext2load ${devtype} ${devnum}:${rootpart} ${kernel_addr_r} /boot/zImage
> ext2load ${devtype} ${devnum}:${rootpart} ${fdt_addr_r} /boot/${soc}-${board}.dtb
> bootz ${kernel_addr_r} - ${fdt_addr_r}

And yes, "part uuid" and "bootz" are new, but recall that FIT support
isn't available everywhere either, so you can't use that argument
against it.

And yes, some people creating dedicated embedded systems might not want
a boot script on disk, but for a general-purpose setup running arbitrary
Linux distros, this seems like the most flexible thing to do, just like
Grub's grub.cfg.


> In some cases there 
> might not even a usable device or filesystem for U-Boot to find the 
> /boot directory.  Alternate bootloaders might not have a btrfs driver 
> for digging into the installed distro filesystem.  Etc.

/boot often has constraints dictated by the bootloader, e.g. must be
ext2 not some other fancy filesystem on x86.

If there's no filesystem for U-Boot/... to load a zImage/... from, then
you're already outside the realm of a general purpose machine that
supports arbitrary Linux distros, and into the realm of custom embedded
systems. Those will always require some custom non-generic work to get
them too boot the way you want. But the system creator/integrator gets
to do that, not the Linux distro.

> Whereas, if the bootloader simply provides a DTB using any method deemed 
> appropriate by the OEM, then the kernel and therefore the distros are 
> freed from this extra and avoidable maintenance cost.  The _only_ 
> contract between the bootloader and the kernel/distro should be this 
> passing of a DTB (and initrd) in a standardized way.

That contract isn't influenced by how/where the bootloader obtains the
DTB, so that statement isn't relevant to the use of FIT.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:10:36PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 02:18 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Where were such guidance given?
> 
> IIRC, it's been discussed a number of times on the Linux ARM kernel
> mailing list and at the various ARM workshops at kernel summit and/or
> Linaro Connect. It has been a while, so maybe the advice was simply
> supposed to age out, but I certainly haven't seen any explicit
> indication that the advice was temporary or rescinded.

And this is why Linaro Connects are a bad idea.  They give the illusion
of decisions being taken and finalize, taking the decision process out
of the open source community.

It can be viewed as corporate takeover of open source.  (I realise that
comment is going to get peoples backs up - but unfortunately you can't
call an apple a pear.)

What is the really sad thing is that at no point do the Linaro Connects
really come back to the community (such as this mailing list) and say
"this is what was discussed, and this is what we think, can we get
agreement".  Instead what happens is that stuff gets discussed behind
closed doors, work starts, patches come out, and then it gets discussed
openly.

And... as for the meeting notes system... I looked at the ARM booting
stuff on Linaro's website - it contains no real useful information, it
looks like it's fallen by the way side.  So what's the point of having
a page or two on it?

> Someone will want to use a previously unsupported feature of some HW and
> then write the DT bindings for that feature for the first time. E.g.
> Tegra's one-wire controller isn't that commonly used, so we have no
> binding for it yet despite it being maybe a couple years after starting
> DT work for Tegra. The AC'97 was only recently supported.
> 
> Now I agree that this probably will settle down eventually. However, HW
> will have been widely distributed well before the DT bindings are
> feature-complete and bug-free. Any solution needs to take that into
> account, rather than only attempting to solve the situation after the
> hardware is obsolete and hence the bindings are stable.

Tell me then - how is it possible for my laptop to boot correctly with
its ACPI data which describes its hardware, and that ACPI data hardly
ever has to be updated.  Many PC systems have been doing this for
years, with various degrees of success - but generally once you have
a working system it stays working and never needs to have its ACPI data
updated.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:10:36PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 02:18 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Where were such guidance given?
> 
> IIRC, it's been discussed a number of times on the Linux ARM kernel
> mailing list and at the various ARM workshops at kernel summit and/or
> Linaro Connect. It has been a while, so maybe the advice was simply
> supposed to age out, but I certainly haven't seen any explicit
> indication that the advice was temporary or rescinded.

And this is why Linaro Connects are a bad idea.  They give the illusion
of decisions being taken and finalize, taking the decision process out
of the open source community.

It can be viewed as corporate takeover of open source.  (I realise that
comment is going to get peoples backs up - but unfortunately you can't
call an apple a pear.)

What is the really sad thing is that at no point do the Linaro Connects
really come back to the community (such as this mailing list) and say
"this is what was discussed, and this is what we think, can we get
agreement".  Instead what happens is that stuff gets discussed behind
closed doors, work starts, patches come out, and then it gets discussed
openly.

And... as for the meeting notes system... I looked at the ARM booting
stuff on Linaro's website - it contains no real useful information, it
looks like it's fallen by the way side.  So what's the point of having
a page or two on it?

> Someone will want to use a previously unsupported feature of some HW and
> then write the DT bindings for that feature for the first time. E.g.
> Tegra's one-wire controller isn't that commonly used, so we have no
> binding for it yet despite it being maybe a couple years after starting
> DT work for Tegra. The AC'97 was only recently supported.
> 
> Now I agree that this probably will settle down eventually. However, HW
> will have been widely distributed well before the DT bindings are
> feature-complete and bug-free. Any solution needs to take that into
> account, rather than only attempting to solve the situation after the
> hardware is obsolete and hence the bindings are stable.

Tell me then - how is it possible for my laptop to boot correctly with
its ACPI data which describes its hardware, and that ACPI data hardly
ever has to be updated.  Many PC systems have been doing this for
years, with various degrees of success - but generally once you have
a working system it stays working and never needs to have its ACPI data
updated.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:10:36PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 02:18 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Where were such guidance given?
> 
> IIRC, it's been discussed a number of times on the Linux ARM kernel
> mailing list and at the various ARM workshops at kernel summit and/or
> Linaro Connect. It has been a while, so maybe the advice was simply
> supposed to age out, but I certainly haven't seen any explicit
> indication that the advice was temporary or rescinded.

And this is why Linaro Connects are a bad idea.  They give the illusion
of decisions being taken and finalize, taking the decision process out
of the open source community.

It can be viewed as corporate takeover of open source.  (I realise that
comment is going to get peoples backs up - but unfortunately you can't
call an apple a pear.)

What is the really sad thing is that at no point do the Linaro Connects
really come back to the community (such as this mailing list) and say
"this is what was discussed, and this is what we think, can we get
agreement".  Instead what happens is that stuff gets discussed behind
closed doors, work starts, patches come out, and then it gets discussed
openly.

And... as for the meeting notes system... I looked at the ARM booting
stuff on Linaro's website - it contains no real useful information, it
looks like it's fallen by the way side.  So what's the point of having
a page or two on it?

> Someone will want to use a previously unsupported feature of some HW and
> then write the DT bindings for that feature for the first time. E.g.
> Tegra's one-wire controller isn't that commonly used, so we have no
> binding for it yet despite it being maybe a couple years after starting
> DT work for Tegra. The AC'97 was only recently supported.
> 
> Now I agree that this probably will settle down eventually. However, HW
> will have been widely distributed well before the DT bindings are
> feature-complete and bug-free. Any solution needs to take that into
> account, rather than only attempting to solve the situation after the
> hardware is obsolete and hence the bindings are stable.

Tell me then - how is it possible for my laptop to boot correctly with
its ACPI data which describes its hardware, and that ACPI data hardly
ever has to be updated.  Many PC systems have been doing this for
years, with various degrees of success - but generally once you have
a working system it stays working and never needs to have its ACPI data
updated.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 05:39 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:10:36PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 02:18 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
...
>> Someone will want to use a previously unsupported feature of some HW and
>> then write the DT bindings for that feature for the first time. E.g.
>> Tegra's one-wire controller isn't that commonly used, so we have no
>> binding for it yet despite it being maybe a couple years after starting
>> DT work for Tegra. The AC'97 was only recently supported.
>>
>> Now I agree that this probably will settle down eventually. However, HW
>> will have been widely distributed well before the DT bindings are
>> feature-complete and bug-free. Any solution needs to take that into
>> account, rather than only attempting to solve the situation after the
>> hardware is obsolete and hence the bindings are stable.
> 
> Tell me then - how is it possible for my laptop to boot correctly with
> its ACPI data which describes its hardware, and that ACPI data hardly
> ever has to be updated.  Many PC systems have been doing this for
> years, with various degrees of success - but generally once you have
> a working system it stays working and never needs to have its ACPI data
> updated.

I'm not too familiar with ACPI or even low-level x86/PC architecture, so
forgive me if I'm talking crap, but I suspect there are quite a few
reasons for the differences here:

* PC systems in general are rather simpler and more standardized. Even
where "differentiation" can exist, it's encapsulated behind simple
self-contained interfaces.

* As an example, most random "expansion" devices on a PC are PCIe or USB
based, even built-in stuff such as WiFi cards etc. On ARM, there are no
standards, so anything goes. Hence, PC expansion cards are much more
self-contained and interact with other devices less, whereas on ARM you
have a whole spaghetti slew of chips, GPIOs, regulators, interrupts, ...

* I think ARM designs are exposed to a wider audience earlier on in
their maturity cycle. On x86, there are a number of standards for ACPI
etc., and the first people to interact with boards and implement these
standards are BIOS and board vendors, and then the boards get out to the
general public, and they at least basically all confirm to those
standards and work. However, on ARM, we're developing those standards
well after the fact; after the HW has shipped and been in use,
retro-fitting the standards etc. So, we're being exposed to a much
earlier point in the whole cycle than we can even see on x86. I bet x86
CPU, chipset, BIOS, and board vendors see the kind of change in ACPI
tables that we're seeing in DT right now.

* I imagine there are fewer different sets of people (CPU vendors, BIOS
vendors) having to work on defining ACPI standards than there are ARM
SoC vendors and Linux developer who're working on DT standards.

* x86 is very mature, so there's a lot more incremental development and
compatibility. ARM and DT-on-ARM are very new, so it's still the wild west.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 05:39 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:10:36PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 02:18 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
...
>> Someone will want to use a previously unsupported feature of some HW and
>> then write the DT bindings for that feature for the first time. E.g.
>> Tegra's one-wire controller isn't that commonly used, so we have no
>> binding for it yet despite it being maybe a couple years after starting
>> DT work for Tegra. The AC'97 was only recently supported.
>>
>> Now I agree that this probably will settle down eventually. However, HW
>> will have been widely distributed well before the DT bindings are
>> feature-complete and bug-free. Any solution needs to take that into
>> account, rather than only attempting to solve the situation after the
>> hardware is obsolete and hence the bindings are stable.
> 
> Tell me then - how is it possible for my laptop to boot correctly with
> its ACPI data which describes its hardware, and that ACPI data hardly
> ever has to be updated.  Many PC systems have been doing this for
> years, with various degrees of success - but generally once you have
> a working system it stays working and never needs to have its ACPI data
> updated.

I'm not too familiar with ACPI or even low-level x86/PC architecture, so
forgive me if I'm talking crap, but I suspect there are quite a few
reasons for the differences here:

* PC systems in general are rather simpler and more standardized. Even
where "differentiation" can exist, it's encapsulated behind simple
self-contained interfaces.

* As an example, most random "expansion" devices on a PC are PCIe or USB
based, even built-in stuff such as WiFi cards etc. On ARM, there are no
standards, so anything goes. Hence, PC expansion cards are much more
self-contained and interact with other devices less, whereas on ARM you
have a whole spaghetti slew of chips, GPIOs, regulators, interrupts, ...

* I think ARM designs are exposed to a wider audience earlier on in
their maturity cycle. On x86, there are a number of standards for ACPI
etc., and the first people to interact with boards and implement these
standards are BIOS and board vendors, and then the boards get out to the
general public, and they at least basically all confirm to those
standards and work. However, on ARM, we're developing those standards
well after the fact; after the HW has shipped and been in use,
retro-fitting the standards etc. So, we're being exposed to a much
earlier point in the whole cycle than we can even see on x86. I bet x86
CPU, chipset, BIOS, and board vendors see the kind of change in ACPI
tables that we're seeing in DT right now.

* I imagine there are fewer different sets of people (CPU vendors, BIOS
vendors) having to work on defining ACPI standards than there are ARM
SoC vendors and Linux developer who're working on DT standards.

* x86 is very mature, so there's a lot more incremental development and
compatibility. ARM and DT-on-ARM are very new, so it's still the wild west.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 05:39 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:10:36PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 02:18 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
...
>> Someone will want to use a previously unsupported feature of some HW and
>> then write the DT bindings for that feature for the first time. E.g.
>> Tegra's one-wire controller isn't that commonly used, so we have no
>> binding for it yet despite it being maybe a couple years after starting
>> DT work for Tegra. The AC'97 was only recently supported.
>>
>> Now I agree that this probably will settle down eventually. However, HW
>> will have been widely distributed well before the DT bindings are
>> feature-complete and bug-free. Any solution needs to take that into
>> account, rather than only attempting to solve the situation after the
>> hardware is obsolete and hence the bindings are stable.
> 
> Tell me then - how is it possible for my laptop to boot correctly with
> its ACPI data which describes its hardware, and that ACPI data hardly
> ever has to be updated.  Many PC systems have been doing this for
> years, with various degrees of success - but generally once you have
> a working system it stays working and never needs to have its ACPI data
> updated.

I'm not too familiar with ACPI or even low-level x86/PC architecture, so
forgive me if I'm talking crap, but I suspect there are quite a few
reasons for the differences here:

* PC systems in general are rather simpler and more standardized. Even
where "differentiation" can exist, it's encapsulated behind simple
self-contained interfaces.

* As an example, most random "expansion" devices on a PC are PCIe or USB
based, even built-in stuff such as WiFi cards etc. On ARM, there are no
standards, so anything goes. Hence, PC expansion cards are much more
self-contained and interact with other devices less, whereas on ARM you
have a whole spaghetti slew of chips, GPIOs, regulators, interrupts, ...

* I think ARM designs are exposed to a wider audience earlier on in
their maturity cycle. On x86, there are a number of standards for ACPI
etc., and the first people to interact with boards and implement these
standards are BIOS and board vendors, and then the boards get out to the
general public, and they at least basically all confirm to those
standards and work. However, on ARM, we're developing those standards
well after the fact; after the HW has shipped and been in use,
retro-fitting the standards etc. So, we're being exposed to a much
earlier point in the whole cycle than we can even see on x86. I bet x86
CPU, chipset, BIOS, and board vendors see the kind of change in ACPI
tables that we're seeing in DT right now.

* I imagine there are fewer different sets of people (CPU vendors, BIOS
vendors) having to work on defining ACPI standards than there are ARM
SoC vendors and Linux developer who're working on DT standards.

* x86 is very mature, so there's a lot more incremental development and
compatibility. ARM and DT-on-ARM are very new, so it's still the wild west.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.

Just to thread jack a bit here..

We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
mainlined and when, etc.

Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
it.

People making dev boards and distros for them certainly have different
requirements, but we've decided that the single image approach is the
best for appliance style products.

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.

Just to thread jack a bit here..

We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
mainlined and when, etc.

Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
it.

People making dev boards and distros for them certainly have different
requirements, but we've decided that the single image approach is the
best for appliance style products.

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.

Just to thread jack a bit here..

We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
mainlined and when, etc.

Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
it.

People making dev boards and distros for them certainly have different
requirements, but we've decided that the single image approach is the
best for appliance style products.

Jason

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:27:24AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> > device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> > other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> > on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> > or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> > all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> > FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.
> 
> Just to thread jack a bit here..
> 
> We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> mainlined and when, etc.

Just be aware that on ARM at some point, the DT files will be moved
out of the kernel source and held in an independent git tree; there
won't be any intention of "kernel version dependence" - if there is
then kernel maintanence has failed - and the use of DT has failed too.

The stated point of DT is that it describes the hardware.  If there's
a dependence on the kernel version, then it's doing more than describing
the hardware - it would be describing the kernel implementation as well.

> Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

Note that the combined zImage plus DTB today on ARM is just a stop-gap
for boot loaders which provide only an ATAG based booting solution.
It's not there as a long term kernel facility.  It will probably be
going away when the DT files are moved out of the kernel source tree.

> Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
> deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
> because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
> to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
> or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
> it.

If the DT file describes the hardware properly, then you shouldn't
need to update it.  Or if the DT file contains a bug (eg, because it
doesn't describe how things are wired) then it's wrong whatever.

But whatever.  There's absolutely no problem storing the DT file
separately from the boot loader, and also separately from the kernel
itself (this is something that has been stated will be the normal
way that DT will be dealt with when DT on ARM was first mooted.)

If that's not the case, then we're really just playing one huge game
with DT, causing lots of pointless churn for no benefit to people
like you, and we might as well stop kidding ourselves that DT gives
us any advantages what so ever.  We might as well go back to putting
this data right back into the kernel in C file form.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:27:24AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> > device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> > other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> > on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> > or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> > all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> > FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.
> 
> Just to thread jack a bit here..
> 
> We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> mainlined and when, etc.

Just be aware that on ARM at some point, the DT files will be moved
out of the kernel source and held in an independent git tree; there
won't be any intention of "kernel version dependence" - if there is
then kernel maintanence has failed - and the use of DT has failed too.

The stated point of DT is that it describes the hardware.  If there's
a dependence on the kernel version, then it's doing more than describing
the hardware - it would be describing the kernel implementation as well.

> Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

Note that the combined zImage plus DTB today on ARM is just a stop-gap
for boot loaders which provide only an ATAG based booting solution.
It's not there as a long term kernel facility.  It will probably be
going away when the DT files are moved out of the kernel source tree.

> Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
> deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
> because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
> to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
> or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
> it.

If the DT file describes the hardware properly, then you shouldn't
need to update it.  Or if the DT file contains a bug (eg, because it
doesn't describe how things are wired) then it's wrong whatever.

But whatever.  There's absolutely no problem storing the DT file
separately from the boot loader, and also separately from the kernel
itself (this is something that has been stated will be the normal
way that DT will be dealt with when DT on ARM was first mooted.)

If that's not the case, then we're really just playing one huge game
with DT, causing lots of pointless churn for no benefit to people
like you, and we might as well stop kidding ourselves that DT gives
us any advantages what so ever.  We might as well go back to putting
this data right back into the kernel in C file form.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:27:24AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> > device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> > other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> > on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> > or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> > all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> > FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.
> 
> Just to thread jack a bit here..
> 
> We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> mainlined and when, etc.

Just be aware that on ARM at some point, the DT files will be moved
out of the kernel source and held in an independent git tree; there
won't be any intention of "kernel version dependence" - if there is
then kernel maintanence has failed - and the use of DT has failed too.

The stated point of DT is that it describes the hardware.  If there's
a dependence on the kernel version, then it's doing more than describing
the hardware - it would be describing the kernel implementation as well.

> Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

Note that the combined zImage plus DTB today on ARM is just a stop-gap
for boot loaders which provide only an ATAG based booting solution.
It's not there as a long term kernel facility.  It will probably be
going away when the DT files are moved out of the kernel source tree.

> Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
> deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
> because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
> to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
> or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
> it.

If the DT file describes the hardware properly, then you shouldn't
need to update it.  Or if the DT file contains a bug (eg, because it
doesn't describe how things are wired) then it's wrong whatever.

But whatever.  There's absolutely no problem storing the DT file
separately from the boot loader, and also separately from the kernel
itself (this is something that has been stated will be the normal
way that DT will be dealt with when DT on ARM was first mooted.)

If that's not the case, then we're really just playing one huge game
with DT, causing lots of pointless churn for no benefit to people
like you, and we might as well stop kidding ourselves that DT gives
us any advantages what so ever.  We might as well go back to putting
this data right back into the kernel in C file form.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:08:20PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> > We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> > on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> > file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> > with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> > depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> > mainlined and when, etc.
> 
> Just be aware that on ARM at some point, the DT files will be moved
> out of the kernel source and held in an independent git tree; there
> won't be any intention of "kernel version dependence" - if there is
> then kernel maintanence has failed - and the use of DT has failed too.

Yes, I've read that in this thread. I have to say that is a scary
thought, if the seperate DT's get all fragmented like uboot is then
it is just going to be a huge PITA.

> The stated point of DT is that it describes the hardware.  If there's
> a dependence on the kernel version, then it's doing more than describing
> the hardware - it would be describing the kernel implementation as well.

Again yes, but.. My experience has been a bit different,
*pragmatically* the DTs are configuring Linux to work with that
hardware, and the Linux expectations can leak into that.

The DT changes seem to tail off as the HW and drivers mature, our PPC
stuff doesn't change much at all these days, but the our ARM DT is
churning like crazy..

I think this pattern is very likely to repeat every time a new SOC is
introduced. Until everything is mainlined and agreed on the DTs for
that SOC will churn.

Some of this seems to be caused by the complexity of the OF standard,
the flexibility it allows and the fact it is being pushed into areas
the standard doesn't cover. With more than one way to do everything
stuff gets done wrong, or people change their minds, or whatever.

> Note that the combined zImage plus DTB today on ARM is just a stop-gap
> for boot loaders which provide only an ATAG based booting solution.
> It's not there as a long term kernel facility.  It will probably be
> going away when the DT files are moved out of the kernel source tree.

Thats fine for me, we don't use that mechanism.

> > Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
> > deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
> > because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
> > to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
> > or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
> > it.
> 
> If the DT file describes the hardware properly, then you shouldn't
> need to update it.  Or if the DT file contains a bug (eg, because it
> doesn't describe how things are wired) then it's wrong whatever.

.. or Linux changes how it interprets the DT.

.. or Linux requires additional HW blocks to be described in the DT.

> If that's not the case, then we're really just playing one huge game
> with DT, causing lots of pointless churn for no benefit to people
> like you, and we might as well stop kidding ourselves that DT gives
> us any advantages what so ever.  We might as well go back to putting
> this data right back into the kernel in C file form.

Well, when we switched PPC to DT it was a huge improvement in these
areas:
 - Describing and binding I2C devices
 - .. MDIO Phys
 - Passing ethernet MAC addresses into drivers
 - Routing and binding GPIOs to linux drivers (like I2C, MDIO,
   resets etc)
 - Passing HW specific options into buried drivers, eg options for
   I2C hwmon devices, LED configuration for phys, etc

All of which had OF mechanisms, but no good C mechanism (at the time
at least)

I also noticed a decrease in churn, the PPC DT descriptions have been
more stable that the prior C versions. The C versions often tended to
need small revisions as the kernel changed.

Further, our boards are almost always very different than the eval/dev
platforms provided by the vendor. The splitting up and modularizing of
the kernel code that has come along with DT has made it much simpler
to support our specific boards.

So, I strongly disagree that DT is bringing no benefit to my kind of
application.

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:08:20PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> > We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> > on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> > file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> > with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> > depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> > mainlined and when, etc.
> 
> Just be aware that on ARM at some point, the DT files will be moved
> out of the kernel source and held in an independent git tree; there
> won't be any intention of "kernel version dependence" - if there is
> then kernel maintanence has failed - and the use of DT has failed too.

Yes, I've read that in this thread. I have to say that is a scary
thought, if the seperate DT's get all fragmented like uboot is then
it is just going to be a huge PITA.

> The stated point of DT is that it describes the hardware.  If there's
> a dependence on the kernel version, then it's doing more than describing
> the hardware - it would be describing the kernel implementation as well.

Again yes, but.. My experience has been a bit different,
*pragmatically* the DTs are configuring Linux to work with that
hardware, and the Linux expectations can leak into that.

The DT changes seem to tail off as the HW and drivers mature, our PPC
stuff doesn't change much at all these days, but the our ARM DT is
churning like crazy..

I think this pattern is very likely to repeat every time a new SOC is
introduced. Until everything is mainlined and agreed on the DTs for
that SOC will churn.

Some of this seems to be caused by the complexity of the OF standard,
the flexibility it allows and the fact it is being pushed into areas
the standard doesn't cover. With more than one way to do everything
stuff gets done wrong, or people change their minds, or whatever.

> Note that the combined zImage plus DTB today on ARM is just a stop-gap
> for boot loaders which provide only an ATAG based booting solution.
> It's not there as a long term kernel facility.  It will probably be
> going away when the DT files are moved out of the kernel source tree.

Thats fine for me, we don't use that mechanism.

> > Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
> > deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
> > because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
> > to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
> > or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
> > it.
> 
> If the DT file describes the hardware properly, then you shouldn't
> need to update it.  Or if the DT file contains a bug (eg, because it
> doesn't describe how things are wired) then it's wrong whatever.

.. or Linux changes how it interprets the DT.

.. or Linux requires additional HW blocks to be described in the DT.

> If that's not the case, then we're really just playing one huge game
> with DT, causing lots of pointless churn for no benefit to people
> like you, and we might as well stop kidding ourselves that DT gives
> us any advantages what so ever.  We might as well go back to putting
> this data right back into the kernel in C file form.

Well, when we switched PPC to DT it was a huge improvement in these
areas:
 - Describing and binding I2C devices
 - .. MDIO Phys
 - Passing ethernet MAC addresses into drivers
 - Routing and binding GPIOs to linux drivers (like I2C, MDIO,
   resets etc)
 - Passing HW specific options into buried drivers, eg options for
   I2C hwmon devices, LED configuration for phys, etc

All of which had OF mechanisms, but no good C mechanism (at the time
at least)

I also noticed a decrease in churn, the PPC DT descriptions have been
more stable that the prior C versions. The C versions often tended to
need small revisions as the kernel changed.

Further, our boards are almost always very different than the eval/dev
platforms provided by the vendor. The splitting up and modularizing of
the kernel code that has come along with DT has made it much simpler
to support our specific boards.

So, I strongly disagree that DT is bringing no benefit to my kind of
application.

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:08:20PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> > We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> > on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> > file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> > with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> > depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> > mainlined and when, etc.
> 
> Just be aware that on ARM at some point, the DT files will be moved
> out of the kernel source and held in an independent git tree; there
> won't be any intention of "kernel version dependence" - if there is
> then kernel maintanence has failed - and the use of DT has failed too.

Yes, I've read that in this thread. I have to say that is a scary
thought, if the seperate DT's get all fragmented like uboot is then
it is just going to be a huge PITA.

> The stated point of DT is that it describes the hardware.  If there's
> a dependence on the kernel version, then it's doing more than describing
> the hardware - it would be describing the kernel implementation as well.

Again yes, but.. My experience has been a bit different,
*pragmatically* the DTs are configuring Linux to work with that
hardware, and the Linux expectations can leak into that.

The DT changes seem to tail off as the HW and drivers mature, our PPC
stuff doesn't change much at all these days, but the our ARM DT is
churning like crazy..

I think this pattern is very likely to repeat every time a new SOC is
introduced. Until everything is mainlined and agreed on the DTs for
that SOC will churn.

Some of this seems to be caused by the complexity of the OF standard,
the flexibility it allows and the fact it is being pushed into areas
the standard doesn't cover. With more than one way to do everything
stuff gets done wrong, or people change their minds, or whatever.

> Note that the combined zImage plus DTB today on ARM is just a stop-gap
> for boot loaders which provide only an ATAG based booting solution.
> It's not there as a long term kernel facility.  It will probably be
> going away when the DT files are moved out of the kernel source tree.

Thats fine for me, we don't use that mechanism.

> > Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
> > deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
> > because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
> > to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
> > or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
> > it.
> 
> If the DT file describes the hardware properly, then you shouldn't
> need to update it.  Or if the DT file contains a bug (eg, because it
> doesn't describe how things are wired) then it's wrong whatever.

.. or Linux changes how it interprets the DT.

.. or Linux requires additional HW blocks to be described in the DT.

> If that's not the case, then we're really just playing one huge game
> with DT, causing lots of pointless churn for no benefit to people
> like you, and we might as well stop kidding ourselves that DT gives
> us any advantages what so ever.  We might as well go back to putting
> this data right back into the kernel in C file form.

Well, when we switched PPC to DT it was a huge improvement in these
areas:
 - Describing and binding I2C devices
 - .. MDIO Phys
 - Passing ethernet MAC addresses into drivers
 - Routing and binding GPIOs to linux drivers (like I2C, MDIO,
   resets etc)
 - Passing HW specific options into buried drivers, eg options for
   I2C hwmon devices, LED configuration for phys, etc

All of which had OF mechanisms, but no good C mechanism (at the time
at least)

I also noticed a decrease in churn, the PPC DT descriptions have been
more stable that the prior C versions. The C versions often tended to
need small revisions as the kernel changed.

Further, our boards are almost always very different than the eval/dev
platforms provided by the vendor. The splitting up and modularizing of
the kernel code that has come along with DT has made it much simpler
to support our specific boards.

So, I strongly disagree that DT is bringing no benefit to my kind of
application.

Jason

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> > device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> > other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> > on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> > or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> > all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> > FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.
> 
> Just to thread jack a bit here..
> 
> We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> mainlined and when, etc.

For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
as you honor the applicable licenses of course).

But here we're discussing ARM Linux distributions having to deal with 
different hardware devices.  It simply doesn't make sense to bundle 
every hardware specific data with the kernel in that context.

> Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

No one is advocating to embed the DT stuff in the bootloader.  The DTB 
may be buggy and/or incomplete and being able to update it safely i.e. 
independently from the bootloader is necessary.

> Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
> deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
> because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
> to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
> or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
> it.
> 
> People making dev boards and distros for them certainly have different
> requirements, but we've decided that the single image approach is the
> best for appliance style products.

Absolutely.  And in your case, DT is not bringing any benefit over the 
previous situation where everything was compiled into the kernel.  I 
suspect you're not using the multi-platform support either which is one 
of the major endeavor on ARM right now.


Nicolas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> > device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> > other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> > on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> > or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> > all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> > FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.
> 
> Just to thread jack a bit here..
> 
> We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> mainlined and when, etc.

For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
as you honor the applicable licenses of course).

But here we're discussing ARM Linux distributions having to deal with 
different hardware devices.  It simply doesn't make sense to bundle 
every hardware specific data with the kernel in that context.

> Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

No one is advocating to embed the DT stuff in the bootloader.  The DTB 
may be buggy and/or incomplete and being able to update it safely i.e. 
independently from the bootloader is necessary.

> Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
> deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
> because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
> to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
> or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
> it.
> 
> People making dev boards and distros for them certainly have different
> requirements, but we've decided that the single image approach is the
> best for appliance style products.

Absolutely.  And in your case, DT is not bringing any benefit over the 
previous situation where everything was compiled into the kernel.  I 
suspect you're not using the multi-platform support either which is one 
of the major endeavor on ARM right now.


Nicolas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> > device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> > other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> > on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> > or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> > all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> > FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.
> 
> Just to thread jack a bit here..
> 
> We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> mainlined and when, etc.

For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
as you honor the applicable licenses of course).

But here we're discussing ARM Linux distributions having to deal with 
different hardware devices.  It simply doesn't make sense to bundle 
every hardware specific data with the kernel in that context.

> Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

No one is advocating to embed the DT stuff in the bootloader.  The DTB 
may be buggy and/or incomplete and being able to update it safely i.e. 
independently from the bootloader is necessary.

> Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
> deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
> because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
> to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
> or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
> it.
> 
> People making dev boards and distros for them certainly have different
> requirements, but we've decided that the single image approach is the
> best for appliance style products.

Absolutely.  And in your case, DT is not bringing any benefit over the 
previous situation where everything was compiled into the kernel.  I 
suspect you're not using the multi-platform support either which is one 
of the major endeavor on ARM right now.


Nicolas

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > 
> > > So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> > > device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> > > other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> > > on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> > > or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> > > all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> > > FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.
> > 
> > Just to thread jack a bit here..
> > 
> > We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> > on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> > file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> > with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> > depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> > mainlined and when, etc.
> 
> For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
> interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
> as you honor the applicable licenses of course).

I was specifically responding to your statement that 'a hybrid mixed
solution like FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong
message.'

We have been making good use of such an arrangement, and it is
defintely not 'the wrong message' for certain applications. In fact,
as I said, it is probably the *right* message for embedded users.

Even if I was a distro user, the idea that my dt and kernel would be
decoupled is very scary. Realize that today, my Kirkwood systems
require a different DT for at least 3.7 and 3.8 kernels, and quite
possibly different again for 3.9!!

This will eventually settle on kirkwood, but I bet the same pattern
will repeat on the next new SOC.

I would have thought keeping the device tree data and kernel together
is preferred for most cases as it is more inline with
Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt. Making the DT a strong stable
API boundary sounds really hard to me, and if the churn on ARM so far
is indication, it may not be realistic..

> But here we're discussing ARM Linux distributions having to deal with 
> different hardware devices.  It simply doesn't make sense to bundle 
> every hardware specific data with the kernel in that context.

Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.

I am thinking something like /lib/device-tree/`uname -r`/...

Where (taking a PC analog) the bootloader is told to grab:
 /boot/vmlinuz-3.9
 /boot/initrd.img-3.9
 /lib/device-tree/3.9/ti/omap/foo-bar-board

The kernel build can be nice and uniform, while the distro can provide
scripts/tools to bundle the kernel zimage, kernel modules, initramfs
stuff and dtb into something bootable - be it FIT, uimage, bootz
script, grub script or whatever.

> > Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> > embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> > thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> > initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.
> 
> No one is advocating to embed the DT stuff in the bootloader.  The DTB 
> may be buggy and/or incomplete and being able to update it safely i.e. 
> independently from the bootloader is necessary.

Sorry, what did you mean by:
'the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader on a given
 board/device'

?

My point was simply that any scenario where the bootloader grabs
a DTB that is not strongly associated with the kernel it is going to
boot is not desirable.

> > People making dev boards and distros for them certainly have different
> > requirements, but we've decided that the single image approach is the
> > best for appliance style products.
> 
> Absolutely.  And in your case, DT is not bringing any benefit over the 
> previous situation where everything was compiled into the kernel.  I 

Strongly disagree, see my prior email to Russell. DT is a very big
improvement over the old way of C coding the same data.

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > 
> > > So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> > > device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> > > other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> > > on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> > > or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> > > all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> > > FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.
> > 
> > Just to thread jack a bit here..
> > 
> > We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> > on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> > file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> > with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> > depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> > mainlined and when, etc.
> 
> For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
> interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
> as you honor the applicable licenses of course).

I was specifically responding to your statement that 'a hybrid mixed
solution like FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong
message.'

We have been making good use of such an arrangement, and it is
defintely not 'the wrong message' for certain applications. In fact,
as I said, it is probably the *right* message for embedded users.

Even if I was a distro user, the idea that my dt and kernel would be
decoupled is very scary. Realize that today, my Kirkwood systems
require a different DT for at least 3.7 and 3.8 kernels, and quite
possibly different again for 3.9!!

This will eventually settle on kirkwood, but I bet the same pattern
will repeat on the next new SOC.

I would have thought keeping the device tree data and kernel together
is preferred for most cases as it is more inline with
Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt. Making the DT a strong stable
API boundary sounds really hard to me, and if the churn on ARM so far
is indication, it may not be realistic..

> But here we're discussing ARM Linux distributions having to deal with 
> different hardware devices.  It simply doesn't make sense to bundle 
> every hardware specific data with the kernel in that context.

Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.

I am thinking something like /lib/device-tree/`uname -r`/...

Where (taking a PC analog) the bootloader is told to grab:
 /boot/vmlinuz-3.9
 /boot/initrd.img-3.9
 /lib/device-tree/3.9/ti/omap/foo-bar-board

The kernel build can be nice and uniform, while the distro can provide
scripts/tools to bundle the kernel zimage, kernel modules, initramfs
stuff and dtb into something bootable - be it FIT, uimage, bootz
script, grub script or whatever.

> > Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> > embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> > thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> > initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.
> 
> No one is advocating to embed the DT stuff in the bootloader.  The DTB 
> may be buggy and/or incomplete and being able to update it safely i.e. 
> independently from the bootloader is necessary.

Sorry, what did you mean by:
'the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader on a given
 board/device'

?

My point was simply that any scenario where the bootloader grabs
a DTB that is not strongly associated with the kernel it is going to
boot is not desirable.

> > People making dev boards and distros for them certainly have different
> > requirements, but we've decided that the single image approach is the
> > best for appliance style products.
> 
> Absolutely.  And in your case, DT is not bringing any benefit over the 
> previous situation where everything was compiled into the kernel.  I 

Strongly disagree, see my prior email to Russell. DT is a very big
improvement over the old way of C coding the same data.

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > 
> > > So let's stop kidding ourselves and be coherent please: either we move 
> > > device specifics away from the kernel, or we keep them together.  In 
> > > other words, the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader 
> > > on a given board/device for distros to not even have to care about it, 
> > > or we put that data back inside the kernel and dispense ourselves from 
> > > all the added DT overhead entirely.  But an hybrid mixed solution like 
> > > FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong message.
> > 
> > Just to thread jack a bit here..
> > 
> > We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
> > on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
> > file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
> > with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
> > depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
> > mainlined and when, etc.
> 
> For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
> interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
> as you honor the applicable licenses of course).

I was specifically responding to your statement that 'a hybrid mixed
solution like FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong
message.'

We have been making good use of such an arrangement, and it is
defintely not 'the wrong message' for certain applications. In fact,
as I said, it is probably the *right* message for embedded users.

Even if I was a distro user, the idea that my dt and kernel would be
decoupled is very scary. Realize that today, my Kirkwood systems
require a different DT for at least 3.7 and 3.8 kernels, and quite
possibly different again for 3.9!!

This will eventually settle on kirkwood, but I bet the same pattern
will repeat on the next new SOC.

I would have thought keeping the device tree data and kernel together
is preferred for most cases as it is more inline with
Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt. Making the DT a strong stable
API boundary sounds really hard to me, and if the churn on ARM so far
is indication, it may not be realistic..

> But here we're discussing ARM Linux distributions having to deal with 
> different hardware devices.  It simply doesn't make sense to bundle 
> every hardware specific data with the kernel in that context.

Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.

I am thinking something like /lib/device-tree/`uname -r`/...

Where (taking a PC analog) the bootloader is told to grab:
 /boot/vmlinuz-3.9
 /boot/initrd.img-3.9
 /lib/device-tree/3.9/ti/omap/foo-bar-board

The kernel build can be nice and uniform, while the distro can provide
scripts/tools to bundle the kernel zimage, kernel modules, initramfs
stuff and dtb into something bootable - be it FIT, uimage, bootz
script, grub script or whatever.

> > Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> > embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> > thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> > initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.
> 
> No one is advocating to embed the DT stuff in the bootloader.  The DTB 
> may be buggy and/or incomplete and being able to update it safely i.e. 
> independently from the bootloader is necessary.

Sorry, what did you mean by:
'the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader on a given
 board/device'

?

My point was simply that any scenario where the bootloader grabs
a DTB that is not strongly associated with the kernel it is going to
boot is not desirable.

> > People making dev boards and distros for them certainly have different
> > requirements, but we've decided that the single image approach is the
> > best for appliance style products.
> 
> Absolutely.  And in your case, DT is not bringing any benefit over the 
> previous situation where everything was compiled into the kernel.  I 

Strongly disagree, see my prior email to Russell. DT is a very big
improvement over the old way of C coding the same data.

Jason

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
> > interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
> > as you honor the applicable licenses of course).
> 
> I was specifically responding to your statement that 'a hybrid mixed
> solution like FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong
> message.'
> 
> We have been making good use of such an arrangement, and it is
> defintely not 'the wrong message' for certain applications. In fact,
> as I said, it is probably the *right* message for embedded users.

No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 
for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute 
multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install 
media.

> Even if I was a distro user, the idea that my dt and kernel would be 
> decoupled is very scary.

That was still the design goal for DT.

> Realize that today, my Kirkwood systems require a different DT for at 
> least 3.7 and 3.8 kernels, and quite possibly different again for 
> 3.9!!

Understandable, given that Kirkwood is being ported to DT right now.  
But if DT had been used from the start when we introduced Kirkwood 
support to Linux back in 2008 you most likely wouldn't have to change 
the DTB on your board at all today.

> This will eventually settle on kirkwood, but I bet the same pattern
> will repeat on the next new SOC.

Possible, although new SOCs do start with DT from the start which is 
much easier than trying to retrofit it to existing code without breaking 
things.  And given that patterns emerge, there is no need to redesign 
new bindings for every new SOC.

> I would have thought keeping the device tree data and kernel together
> is preferred for most cases as it is more inline with
> Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt. Making the DT a strong stable
> API boundary sounds really hard to me, and if the churn on ARM so far
> is indication, it may not be realistic..

The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).

> Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
> there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.

But it is!  Even shipping multiple kernels _is_ a problem for them.  
Hence this multi-platform kernel effort.  Otherwise why would we bother?

According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?

Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.

> I am thinking something like /lib/device-tree/`uname -r`/...
> 
> Where (taking a PC analog) the bootloader is told to grab:
>  /boot/vmlinuz-3.9
>  /boot/initrd.img-3.9
>  /lib/device-tree/3.9/ti/omap/foo-bar-board

And what is the advantage over not having to carry all those files at 
all on your filesystem?

> The kernel build can be nice and uniform, while the distro can provide
> scripts/tools to bundle the kernel zimage, kernel modules, initramfs
> stuff and dtb into something bootable - be it FIT, uimage, bootz
> script, grub script or whatever.

Or they may simply not bother if the bootloader that comes with the 
hardware already does the right thing which is even better.

> > > Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> > > embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> > > thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> > > initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.
> > 
> > No one is advocating to embed the DT stuff in the bootloader.  The DTB 
> > may be buggy and/or incomplete and being able to update it safely i.e. 
> > independently from the bootloader is necessary.
> 
> Sorry, what did you mean by:
> 'the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader on a given
>  board/device'
> 
> ?

When you acquire some hardware, it should come with a DTB and bootloader 
pre-installed, ready to boot any distribution (as long as its kernel 
supports the SoC of course). Your hardware vendor should offer DTB 
updates on its website.  The DTB should not be compiled into the 
bootloader so DTB updates can be done independently from risky 
bootloader updates.


Nicolas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
> > interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
> > as you honor the applicable licenses of course).
> 
> I was specifically responding to your statement that 'a hybrid mixed
> solution like FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong
> message.'
> 
> We have been making good use of such an arrangement, and it is
> defintely not 'the wrong message' for certain applications. In fact,
> as I said, it is probably the *right* message for embedded users.

No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 
for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute 
multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install 
media.

> Even if I was a distro user, the idea that my dt and kernel would be 
> decoupled is very scary.

That was still the design goal for DT.

> Realize that today, my Kirkwood systems require a different DT for at 
> least 3.7 and 3.8 kernels, and quite possibly different again for 
> 3.9!!

Understandable, given that Kirkwood is being ported to DT right now.  
But if DT had been used from the start when we introduced Kirkwood 
support to Linux back in 2008 you most likely wouldn't have to change 
the DTB on your board at all today.

> This will eventually settle on kirkwood, but I bet the same pattern
> will repeat on the next new SOC.

Possible, although new SOCs do start with DT from the start which is 
much easier than trying to retrofit it to existing code without breaking 
things.  And given that patterns emerge, there is no need to redesign 
new bindings for every new SOC.

> I would have thought keeping the device tree data and kernel together
> is preferred for most cases as it is more inline with
> Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt. Making the DT a strong stable
> API boundary sounds really hard to me, and if the churn on ARM so far
> is indication, it may not be realistic..

The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).

> Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
> there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.

But it is!  Even shipping multiple kernels _is_ a problem for them.  
Hence this multi-platform kernel effort.  Otherwise why would we bother?

According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?

Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.

> I am thinking something like /lib/device-tree/`uname -r`/...
> 
> Where (taking a PC analog) the bootloader is told to grab:
>  /boot/vmlinuz-3.9
>  /boot/initrd.img-3.9
>  /lib/device-tree/3.9/ti/omap/foo-bar-board

And what is the advantage over not having to carry all those files at 
all on your filesystem?

> The kernel build can be nice and uniform, while the distro can provide
> scripts/tools to bundle the kernel zimage, kernel modules, initramfs
> stuff and dtb into something bootable - be it FIT, uimage, bootz
> script, grub script or whatever.

Or they may simply not bother if the bootloader that comes with the 
hardware already does the right thing which is even better.

> > > Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> > > embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> > > thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> > > initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.
> > 
> > No one is advocating to embed the DT stuff in the bootloader.  The DTB 
> > may be buggy and/or incomplete and being able to update it safely i.e. 
> > independently from the bootloader is necessary.
> 
> Sorry, what did you mean by:
> 'the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader on a given
>  board/device'
> 
> ?

When you acquire some hardware, it should come with a DTB and bootloader 
pre-installed, ready to boot any distribution (as long as its kernel 
supports the SoC of course). Your hardware vendor should offer DTB 
updates on its website.  The DTB should not be compiled into the 
bootloader so DTB updates can be done independently from risky 
bootloader updates.


Nicolas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
> > interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
> > as you honor the applicable licenses of course).
> 
> I was specifically responding to your statement that 'a hybrid mixed
> solution like FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong
> message.'
> 
> We have been making good use of such an arrangement, and it is
> defintely not 'the wrong message' for certain applications. In fact,
> as I said, it is probably the *right* message for embedded users.

No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 
for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute 
multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install 
media.

> Even if I was a distro user, the idea that my dt and kernel would be 
> decoupled is very scary.

That was still the design goal for DT.

> Realize that today, my Kirkwood systems require a different DT for at 
> least 3.7 and 3.8 kernels, and quite possibly different again for 
> 3.9!!

Understandable, given that Kirkwood is being ported to DT right now.  
But if DT had been used from the start when we introduced Kirkwood 
support to Linux back in 2008 you most likely wouldn't have to change 
the DTB on your board at all today.

> This will eventually settle on kirkwood, but I bet the same pattern
> will repeat on the next new SOC.

Possible, although new SOCs do start with DT from the start which is 
much easier than trying to retrofit it to existing code without breaking 
things.  And given that patterns emerge, there is no need to redesign 
new bindings for every new SOC.

> I would have thought keeping the device tree data and kernel together
> is preferred for most cases as it is more inline with
> Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt. Making the DT a strong stable
> API boundary sounds really hard to me, and if the churn on ARM so far
> is indication, it may not be realistic..

The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).

> Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
> there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.

But it is!  Even shipping multiple kernels _is_ a problem for them.  
Hence this multi-platform kernel effort.  Otherwise why would we bother?

According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?

Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.

> I am thinking something like /lib/device-tree/`uname -r`/...
> 
> Where (taking a PC analog) the bootloader is told to grab:
>  /boot/vmlinuz-3.9
>  /boot/initrd.img-3.9
>  /lib/device-tree/3.9/ti/omap/foo-bar-board

And what is the advantage over not having to carry all those files at 
all on your filesystem?

> The kernel build can be nice and uniform, while the distro can provide
> scripts/tools to bundle the kernel zimage, kernel modules, initramfs
> stuff and dtb into something bootable - be it FIT, uimage, bootz
> script, grub script or whatever.

Or they may simply not bother if the bootloader that comes with the 
hardware already does the right thing which is even better.

> > > Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
> > > embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
> > > thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
> > > initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.
> > 
> > No one is advocating to embed the DT stuff in the bootloader.  The DTB 
> > may be buggy and/or incomplete and being able to update it safely i.e. 
> > independently from the bootloader is necessary.
> 
> Sorry, what did you mean by:
> 'the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader on a given
>  board/device'
> 
> ?

When you acquire some hardware, it should come with a DTB and bootloader 
pre-installed, ready to boot any distribution (as long as its kernel 
supports the SoC of course). Your hardware vendor should offer DTB 
updates on its website.  The DTB should not be compiled into the 
bootloader so DTB updates can be done independently from risky 
bootloader updates.


Nicolas

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
> > > interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
> > > as you honor the applicable licenses of course).
> > 
> > I was specifically responding to your statement that 'a hybrid mixed
> > solution like FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong
> > message.'
> > 
> > We have been making good use of such an arrangement, and it is
> > defintely not 'the wrong message' for certain applications. In fact,
> > as I said, it is probably the *right* message for embedded users.
> 
> No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
> bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 
> for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute 
> multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install 
> media.

Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
(call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
loader.

I strongly disagree with the idea that keeping the DTB seperated from
the kernel is appropriate for all users, or even most users. To me
that only seems appropriate for certain kinds of hardware, eg general
purpose computing devices that are designed to primarily run a Linux
distro.

An embedded SOC eval board, a development platform, an embedded
appliance - these are cases where the kernel and DTB should generally
be more tightly coupled.

This is more or less how PPC has evolved, big commerical PPC systems
like Apple's and IBM's stuff all provide a DTB to the kernel - and
this is actually a bit different then the DT's people are writing for
SOCs, it is firmware generated and includes a full description of all
the probed hardware - including pluggable PCI cards and other
stuff. The hardware is also left configured so there is less for Linux
to do and less that needs to be described in DT.

While embedded focused PPC stuff seems to tend to keep the kernel and
DT together.

> > This will eventually settle on kirkwood, but I bet the same pattern
> > will repeat on the next new SOC.
> 
> Possible, although new SOCs do start with DT from the start which is 
> much easier than trying to retrofit it to existing code without breaking 
> things.  And given that patterns emerge, there is no need to redesign 
> new bindings for every new SOC.

Disagree. We are already seeing patching now for 2nd generation DT
bindings to fix flaws in bindings that were introduced earlier. I hope
the rate will slow down, but the need will probably never go away
completely. :(

This is already standing on top of the work that was done to establish
DT patterns for embedded PPC..

> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).

.. and the patching I mention above are largely driven by either a
change in understanding of how OF should describe the hardware, or a
change in understanding of how the driver should treat the
hardware.

The recent patching for the tegra PCI-E bridge is instructive in this
regard, Theirry learned how to drive the chip in a way that creates a
single PCI domain - this necessitates a change in how the DT models
that hardware block.

There are lots of ways to model the same hardware in DT.

> > Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
> > there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.
> 
> But it is!  Even shipping multiple kernels _is_ a problem for them.  
> Hence this multi-platform kernel effort.  Otherwise why would we bother?

Multiple *kernel packages* is a big problem, one *kernel package* is
generally not.

It is already the case on x86 that a kernel package can't boot out of
the box. The distro builds a box-specific initramfs on boot that
minimally includes enough modules to access the root fs
storage. Grabbing a box specific DT as well is a tiny additional step.

Bear in mind, that like for storage, when the kernel is installed
the system is *already running*. This means it knows what storage
modules are needed, and similarly it knows the content of the DTB it
is using. It can do three things with this:
 - See if /lib/device-tree/.. contains a compatible DTB, if so use the
   version from /lib
 - Save the DTB to /boot/my-board-dtb and use it
 - Realize that it is OEM provided and comes from the firmware, do nothing

So things can very much be fully automated.

> According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
> updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
> would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
> have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?

The distros are going to include uboot packages and people are going
to try and support a wide range of boards through uboot - so yah, on
ARM distros are packaging full BIOS updates for ARM. This doesn't seem
to be a problem.

If the DTs are moved out of the kernel, then the distros will build
and package them too.

Heck, on x86 some distros do make use of the runtime ACPI patching
stuff to fix particularly broken firmware.

> Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.

This stuff is never rejoicing. But give the distro two choices,

 - Include the /lib/device-tree/ .. stuff from the kernel build and
   things will work robustly *on systems that require it*
 - Don't, and a kernel update or firmware update might randomly result
   in boot failure

Which do you think they will they pick?

Relying on OEMs to provide working firmware has been a *nightmare* on
x86. There is no reason to think ARM OEMs would do any better.
Minimizing the amount of OEM specific junk that needs to be used is a
good thing.

Heck, just try to get an OEM supported mainline kernel for some of the
eval boards they ship. Good luck....

> > Sorry, what did you mean by:
> > 'the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader on a given
> >  board/device'
> 
> When you acquire some hardware, it should come with a DTB and bootloader 
> pre-installed, ready to boot any distribution (as long as its kernel 
> supports the SoC of course). Your hardware vendor should offer DTB 
> updates on its website.  The DTB should not be compiled into the 
> bootloader so DTB updates can be done independently from risky 
> bootloader updates.

Like I said, that is fine for some hardware. However, if the kernel is
expected to boot from bare metal or very close to it (ie embedded
focused) then I think it is the wrong approach.

Considering that embedded is one the of the major users of the ARM
kernel right now, I don't think it is clever to push that group into a
bad solution.

Again, I think the stable_api_nonsense.txt ideas apply
here. Minimizing the list of stuff that falls in the 'stable, because
of firmware' category seems like a smart thing to do.

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
> > > interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
> > > as you honor the applicable licenses of course).
> > 
> > I was specifically responding to your statement that 'a hybrid mixed
> > solution like FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong
> > message.'
> > 
> > We have been making good use of such an arrangement, and it is
> > defintely not 'the wrong message' for certain applications. In fact,
> > as I said, it is probably the *right* message for embedded users.
> 
> No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
> bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 
> for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute 
> multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install 
> media.

Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
(call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
loader.

I strongly disagree with the idea that keeping the DTB seperated from
the kernel is appropriate for all users, or even most users. To me
that only seems appropriate for certain kinds of hardware, eg general
purpose computing devices that are designed to primarily run a Linux
distro.

An embedded SOC eval board, a development platform, an embedded
appliance - these are cases where the kernel and DTB should generally
be more tightly coupled.

This is more or less how PPC has evolved, big commerical PPC systems
like Apple's and IBM's stuff all provide a DTB to the kernel - and
this is actually a bit different then the DT's people are writing for
SOCs, it is firmware generated and includes a full description of all
the probed hardware - including pluggable PCI cards and other
stuff. The hardware is also left configured so there is less for Linux
to do and less that needs to be described in DT.

While embedded focused PPC stuff seems to tend to keep the kernel and
DT together.

> > This will eventually settle on kirkwood, but I bet the same pattern
> > will repeat on the next new SOC.
> 
> Possible, although new SOCs do start with DT from the start which is 
> much easier than trying to retrofit it to existing code without breaking 
> things.  And given that patterns emerge, there is no need to redesign 
> new bindings for every new SOC.

Disagree. We are already seeing patching now for 2nd generation DT
bindings to fix flaws in bindings that were introduced earlier. I hope
the rate will slow down, but the need will probably never go away
completely. :(

This is already standing on top of the work that was done to establish
DT patterns for embedded PPC..

> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).

.. and the patching I mention above are largely driven by either a
change in understanding of how OF should describe the hardware, or a
change in understanding of how the driver should treat the
hardware.

The recent patching for the tegra PCI-E bridge is instructive in this
regard, Theirry learned how to drive the chip in a way that creates a
single PCI domain - this necessitates a change in how the DT models
that hardware block.

There are lots of ways to model the same hardware in DT.

> > Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
> > there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.
> 
> But it is!  Even shipping multiple kernels _is_ a problem for them.  
> Hence this multi-platform kernel effort.  Otherwise why would we bother?

Multiple *kernel packages* is a big problem, one *kernel package* is
generally not.

It is already the case on x86 that a kernel package can't boot out of
the box. The distro builds a box-specific initramfs on boot that
minimally includes enough modules to access the root fs
storage. Grabbing a box specific DT as well is a tiny additional step.

Bear in mind, that like for storage, when the kernel is installed
the system is *already running*. This means it knows what storage
modules are needed, and similarly it knows the content of the DTB it
is using. It can do three things with this:
 - See if /lib/device-tree/.. contains a compatible DTB, if so use the
   version from /lib
 - Save the DTB to /boot/my-board-dtb and use it
 - Realize that it is OEM provided and comes from the firmware, do nothing

So things can very much be fully automated.

> According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
> updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
> would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
> have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?

The distros are going to include uboot packages and people are going
to try and support a wide range of boards through uboot - so yah, on
ARM distros are packaging full BIOS updates for ARM. This doesn't seem
to be a problem.

If the DTs are moved out of the kernel, then the distros will build
and package them too.

Heck, on x86 some distros do make use of the runtime ACPI patching
stuff to fix particularly broken firmware.

> Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.

This stuff is never rejoicing. But give the distro two choices,

 - Include the /lib/device-tree/ .. stuff from the kernel build and
   things will work robustly *on systems that require it*
 - Don't, and a kernel update or firmware update might randomly result
   in boot failure

Which do you think they will they pick?

Relying on OEMs to provide working firmware has been a *nightmare* on
x86. There is no reason to think ARM OEMs would do any better.
Minimizing the amount of OEM specific junk that needs to be used is a
good thing.

Heck, just try to get an OEM supported mainline kernel for some of the
eval boards they ship. Good luck....

> > Sorry, what did you mean by:
> > 'the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader on a given
> >  board/device'
> 
> When you acquire some hardware, it should come with a DTB and bootloader 
> pre-installed, ready to boot any distribution (as long as its kernel 
> supports the SoC of course). Your hardware vendor should offer DTB 
> updates on its website.  The DTB should not be compiled into the 
> bootloader so DTB updates can be done independently from risky 
> bootloader updates.

Like I said, that is fine for some hardware. However, if the kernel is
expected to boot from bare metal or very close to it (ie embedded
focused) then I think it is the wrong approach.

Considering that embedded is one the of the major users of the ARM
kernel right now, I don't think it is clever to push that group into a
bad solution.

Again, I think the stable_api_nonsense.txt ideas apply
here. Minimizing the list of stuff that falls in the 'stable, because
of firmware' category seems like a smart thing to do.

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:57:46PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > For embedded appliance product you may do as you wish.  Nobody will 
> > > interfere in the way you develop and support your own products (as long 
> > > as you honor the applicable licenses of course).
> > 
> > I was specifically responding to your statement that 'a hybrid mixed
> > solution like FIT is IMHO the worst of both worlds and sending a wrong
> > message.'
> > 
> > We have been making good use of such an arrangement, and it is
> > defintely not 'the wrong message' for certain applications. In fact,
> > as I said, it is probably the *right* message for embedded users.
> 
> No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
> bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 
> for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute 
> multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install 
> media.

Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
(call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
loader.

I strongly disagree with the idea that keeping the DTB seperated from
the kernel is appropriate for all users, or even most users. To me
that only seems appropriate for certain kinds of hardware, eg general
purpose computing devices that are designed to primarily run a Linux
distro.

An embedded SOC eval board, a development platform, an embedded
appliance - these are cases where the kernel and DTB should generally
be more tightly coupled.

This is more or less how PPC has evolved, big commerical PPC systems
like Apple's and IBM's stuff all provide a DTB to the kernel - and
this is actually a bit different then the DT's people are writing for
SOCs, it is firmware generated and includes a full description of all
the probed hardware - including pluggable PCI cards and other
stuff. The hardware is also left configured so there is less for Linux
to do and less that needs to be described in DT.

While embedded focused PPC stuff seems to tend to keep the kernel and
DT together.

> > This will eventually settle on kirkwood, but I bet the same pattern
> > will repeat on the next new SOC.
> 
> Possible, although new SOCs do start with DT from the start which is 
> much easier than trying to retrofit it to existing code without breaking 
> things.  And given that patterns emerge, there is no need to redesign 
> new bindings for every new SOC.

Disagree. We are already seeing patching now for 2nd generation DT
bindings to fix flaws in bindings that were introduced earlier. I hope
the rate will slow down, but the need will probably never go away
completely. :(

This is already standing on top of the work that was done to establish
DT patterns for embedded PPC..

> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).

.. and the patching I mention above are largely driven by either a
change in understanding of how OF should describe the hardware, or a
change in understanding of how the driver should treat the
hardware.

The recent patching for the tegra PCI-E bridge is instructive in this
regard, Theirry learned how to drive the chip in a way that creates a
single PCI domain - this necessitates a change in how the DT models
that hardware block.

There are lots of ways to model the same hardware in DT.

> > Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
> > there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.
> 
> But it is!  Even shipping multiple kernels _is_ a problem for them.  
> Hence this multi-platform kernel effort.  Otherwise why would we bother?

Multiple *kernel packages* is a big problem, one *kernel package* is
generally not.

It is already the case on x86 that a kernel package can't boot out of
the box. The distro builds a box-specific initramfs on boot that
minimally includes enough modules to access the root fs
storage. Grabbing a box specific DT as well is a tiny additional step.

Bear in mind, that like for storage, when the kernel is installed
the system is *already running*. This means it knows what storage
modules are needed, and similarly it knows the content of the DTB it
is using. It can do three things with this:
 - See if /lib/device-tree/.. contains a compatible DTB, if so use the
   version from /lib
 - Save the DTB to /boot/my-board-dtb and use it
 - Realize that it is OEM provided and comes from the firmware, do nothing

So things can very much be fully automated.

> According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
> updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
> would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
> have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?

The distros are going to include uboot packages and people are going
to try and support a wide range of boards through uboot - so yah, on
ARM distros are packaging full BIOS updates for ARM. This doesn't seem
to be a problem.

If the DTs are moved out of the kernel, then the distros will build
and package them too.

Heck, on x86 some distros do make use of the runtime ACPI patching
stuff to fix particularly broken firmware.

> Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.

This stuff is never rejoicing. But give the distro two choices,

 - Include the /lib/device-tree/ .. stuff from the kernel build and
   things will work robustly *on systems that require it*
 - Don't, and a kernel update or firmware update might randomly result
   in boot failure

Which do you think they will they pick?

Relying on OEMs to provide working firmware has been a *nightmare* on
x86. There is no reason to think ARM OEMs would do any better.
Minimizing the amount of OEM specific junk that needs to be used is a
good thing.

Heck, just try to get an OEM supported mainline kernel for some of the
eval boards they ship. Good luck....

> > Sorry, what did you mean by:
> > 'the DT should ideally come preinstalled with the bootloader on a given
> >  board/device'
> 
> When you acquire some hardware, it should come with a DTB and bootloader 
> pre-installed, ready to boot any distribution (as long as its kernel 
> supports the SoC of course). Your hardware vendor should offer DTB 
> updates on its website.  The DTB should not be compiled into the 
> bootloader so DTB updates can be done independently from risky 
> bootloader updates.

Like I said, that is fine for some hardware. However, if the kernel is
expected to boot from bare metal or very close to it (ie embedded
focused) then I think it is the wrong approach.

Considering that embedded is one the of the major users of the ARM
kernel right now, I don't think it is clever to push that group into a
bad solution.

Again, I think the stable_api_nonsense.txt ideas apply
here. Minimizing the list of stuff that falls in the 'stable, because
of firmware' category seems like a smart thing to do.

Jason

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 04:11 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
...
>> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
>> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
>> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
> 
> .. and the patching I mention above are largely driven by either a
> change in understanding of how OF should describe the hardware, or a
> change in understanding of how the driver should treat the
> hardware.
> 
> The recent patching for the tegra PCI-E bridge is instructive in this
> regard, Theirry learned how to drive the chip in a way that creates a
> single PCI domain - this necessitates a change in how the DT models
> that hardware block.

While I certainly don't disagree with the sentiment of your email, Tegra
PCIe is a bad example. There is no finalized DT binding yet for the
Tegra PCIe HW. Thierry is in the process of defining it for the first time.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 04:11 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
...
>> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
>> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
>> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
> 
> .. and the patching I mention above are largely driven by either a
> change in understanding of how OF should describe the hardware, or a
> change in understanding of how the driver should treat the
> hardware.
> 
> The recent patching for the tegra PCI-E bridge is instructive in this
> regard, Theirry learned how to drive the chip in a way that creates a
> single PCI domain - this necessitates a change in how the DT models
> that hardware block.

While I certainly don't disagree with the sentiment of your email, Tegra
PCIe is a bad example. There is no finalized DT binding yet for the
Tegra PCIe HW. Thierry is in the process of defining it for the first time.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 04:11 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
...
>> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
>> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
>> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
> 
> .. and the patching I mention above are largely driven by either a
> change in understanding of how OF should describe the hardware, or a
> change in understanding of how the driver should treat the
> hardware.
> 
> The recent patching for the tegra PCI-E bridge is instructive in this
> regard, Theirry learned how to drive the chip in a way that creates a
> single PCI domain - this necessitates a change in how the DT models
> that hardware block.

While I certainly don't disagree with the sentiment of your email, Tegra
PCIe is a bad example. There is no finalized DT binding yet for the
Tegra PCIe HW. Thierry is in the process of defining it for the first time.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Scott Wood]

On 02/21/2013 05:11:06 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a
> > bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need  
> that
> > for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute
> > multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install
> > media.
> 
> Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
> similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
> the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
> (call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
> loader.
> 
> I strongly disagree with the idea that keeping the DTB seperated from
> the kernel is appropriate for all users, or even most users. To me
> that only seems appropriate for certain kinds of hardware, eg general
> purpose computing devices that are designed to primarily run a Linux
> distro.
> 
> An embedded SOC eval board, a development platform, an embedded
> appliance - these are cases where the kernel and DTB should generally
> be more tightly coupled.
> 
> This is more or less how PPC has evolved, big commerical PPC systems
> like Apple's and IBM's stuff all provide a DTB to the kernel - and
> this is actually a bit different then the DT's people are writing for
> SOCs, it is firmware generated and includes a full description of all
> the probed hardware - including pluggable PCI cards and other
> stuff. The hardware is also left configured so there is less for Linux
> to do and less that needs to be described in DT.
> 
> While embedded focused PPC stuff seems to tend to keep the kernel and
> DT together.

At least on the Freescale side of "embedded focused PPC stuff", we have  
not kept the kernel and DT together.  It's actually U-Boot that the dts  
files in the kernel tree are tied to, since they contain assumptions  
about how U-Boot lays out the memory map (there are some inherent  
limits to "the device tree just describes the hardware", barring some  
radical changes in the form device trees take), which things U-Boot  
will fill in/modify, and what U-Boot looks for to find out where to  
make the modification.  Usually U-Boot is the only relevant loader for  
a particular board, but not always -- hence "adder875-redboot.dts" and  
"adder875-uboot.dts".  Even when U-Boot is the only relevant loader,  
there are sometimes changes from one version or configuration of U-Boot  
to another that cause problems (e.g. the device trees that come in  
"32b" and "36b" variants).

-Scott

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Scott Wood]

On 02/21/2013 05:11:06 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a
> > bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need  
> that
> > for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute
> > multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install
> > media.
> 
> Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
> similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
> the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
> (call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
> loader.
> 
> I strongly disagree with the idea that keeping the DTB seperated from
> the kernel is appropriate for all users, or even most users. To me
> that only seems appropriate for certain kinds of hardware, eg general
> purpose computing devices that are designed to primarily run a Linux
> distro.
> 
> An embedded SOC eval board, a development platform, an embedded
> appliance - these are cases where the kernel and DTB should generally
> be more tightly coupled.
> 
> This is more or less how PPC has evolved, big commerical PPC systems
> like Apple's and IBM's stuff all provide a DTB to the kernel - and
> this is actually a bit different then the DT's people are writing for
> SOCs, it is firmware generated and includes a full description of all
> the probed hardware - including pluggable PCI cards and other
> stuff. The hardware is also left configured so there is less for Linux
> to do and less that needs to be described in DT.
> 
> While embedded focused PPC stuff seems to tend to keep the kernel and
> DT together.

At least on the Freescale side of "embedded focused PPC stuff", we have  
not kept the kernel and DT together.  It's actually U-Boot that the dts  
files in the kernel tree are tied to, since they contain assumptions  
about how U-Boot lays out the memory map (there are some inherent  
limits to "the device tree just describes the hardware", barring some  
radical changes in the form device trees take), which things U-Boot  
will fill in/modify, and what U-Boot looks for to find out where to  
make the modification.  Usually U-Boot is the only relevant loader for  
a particular board, but not always -- hence "adder875-redboot.dts" and  
"adder875-uboot.dts".  Even when U-Boot is the only relevant loader,  
there are sometimes changes from one version or configuration of U-Boot  
to another that cause problems (e.g. the device trees that come in  
"32b" and "36b" variants).

-Scott

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Scott Wood]

On 02/21/2013 05:11:06 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a
> > bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need  
> that
> > for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute
> > multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install
> > media.
> 
> Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
> similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
> the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
> (call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
> loader.
> 
> I strongly disagree with the idea that keeping the DTB seperated from
> the kernel is appropriate for all users, or even most users. To me
> that only seems appropriate for certain kinds of hardware, eg general
> purpose computing devices that are designed to primarily run a Linux
> distro.
> 
> An embedded SOC eval board, a development platform, an embedded
> appliance - these are cases where the kernel and DTB should generally
> be more tightly coupled.
> 
> This is more or less how PPC has evolved, big commerical PPC systems
> like Apple's and IBM's stuff all provide a DTB to the kernel - and
> this is actually a bit different then the DT's people are writing for
> SOCs, it is firmware generated and includes a full description of all
> the probed hardware - including pluggable PCI cards and other
> stuff. The hardware is also left configured so there is less for Linux
> to do and less that needs to be described in DT.
> 
> While embedded focused PPC stuff seems to tend to keep the kernel and
> DT together.

At least on the Freescale side of "embedded focused PPC stuff", we have  
not kept the kernel and DT together.  It's actually U-Boot that the dts  
files in the kernel tree are tied to, since they contain assumptions  
about how U-Boot lays out the memory map (there are some inherent  
limits to "the device tree just describes the hardware", barring some  
radical changes in the form device trees take), which things U-Boot  
will fill in/modify, and what U-Boot looks for to find out where to  
make the modification.  Usually U-Boot is the only relevant loader for  
a particular board, but not always -- hence "adder875-redboot.dts" and  
"adder875-uboot.dts".  Even when U-Boot is the only relevant loader,  
there are sometimes changes from one version or configuration of U-Boot  
to another that cause problems (e.g. the device trees that come in  
"32b" and "36b" variants).

-Scott

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Scott Wood]

On 02/21/2013 05:11:06 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a
> > bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need  
> that
> > for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute
> > multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install
> > media.
> 
> Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
> similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
> the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
> (call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
> loader.
> 
> I strongly disagree with the idea that keeping the DTB seperated from
> the kernel is appropriate for all users, or even most users. To me
> that only seems appropriate for certain kinds of hardware, eg general
> purpose computing devices that are designed to primarily run a Linux
> distro.
> 
> An embedded SOC eval board, a development platform, an embedded
> appliance - these are cases where the kernel and DTB should generally
> be more tightly coupled.
> 
> This is more or less how PPC has evolved, big commerical PPC systems
> like Apple's and IBM's stuff all provide a DTB to the kernel - and
> this is actually a bit different then the DT's people are writing for
> SOCs, it is firmware generated and includes a full description of all
> the probed hardware - including pluggable PCI cards and other
> stuff. The hardware is also left configured so there is less for Linux
> to do and less that needs to be described in DT.
> 
> While embedded focused PPC stuff seems to tend to keep the kernel and
> DT together.

At least on the Freescale side of "embedded focused PPC stuff", we have  
not kept the kernel and DT together.  It's actually U-Boot that the dts  
files in the kernel tree are tied to, since they contain assumptions  
about how U-Boot lays out the memory map (there are some inherent  
limits to "the device tree just describes the hardware", barring some  
radical changes in the form device trees take), which things U-Boot  
will fill in/modify, and what U-Boot looks for to find out where to  
make the modification.  Usually U-Boot is the only relevant loader for  
a particular board, but not always -- hence "adder875-redboot.dts" and  
"adder875-uboot.dts".  Even when U-Boot is the only relevant loader,  
there are sometimes changes from one version or configuration of U-Boot  
to another that cause problems (e.g. the device trees that come in  
"32b" and "36b" variants).

-Scott

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:15PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:

> >While embedded focused PPC stuff seems to tend to keep the kernel and
> >DT together.
> 
> At least on the Freescale side of "embedded focused PPC stuff", we
> have not kept the kernel and DT together.  It's actually U-Boot that
> the dts files in the kernel tree are tied to, since they contain

Sorry to be unclear, I only ment that the dt sources themselves are in
the kernel, not say, in the uboot repository or otherwise.

> out where to make the modification.  Usually U-Boot is the only
> relevant loader for a particular board, but not always -- hence
> "adder875-redboot.dts" and "adder875-uboot.dts".  Even when U-Boot

At least on ARM Kirkwood these sorts of differences are minimized by
having Linux know how to reprogram the SOC's address map registers
when it starts up .. Although that is helped by having all the boot
loaders put the address map control registers at the same address ;)

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:15PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:

> >While embedded focused PPC stuff seems to tend to keep the kernel and
> >DT together.
> 
> At least on the Freescale side of "embedded focused PPC stuff", we
> have not kept the kernel and DT together.  It's actually U-Boot that
> the dts files in the kernel tree are tied to, since they contain

Sorry to be unclear, I only ment that the dt sources themselves are in
the kernel, not say, in the uboot repository or otherwise.

> out where to make the modification.  Usually U-Boot is the only
> relevant loader for a particular board, but not always -- hence
> "adder875-redboot.dts" and "adder875-uboot.dts".  Even when U-Boot

At least on ARM Kirkwood these sorts of differences are minimized by
having Linux know how to reprogram the SOC's address map registers
when it starts up .. Although that is helped by having all the boot
loaders put the address map control registers at the same address ;)

Jason

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:11:06PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
> > bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 
> > for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute 
> > multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install 
> > media.
> 
> Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
> similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
> the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
> (call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
> loader.

If that's something that PPC does, great.  It's not something that
we have any support for on ARM, nor do we have any intention at
present to add support for it.

The stop-gap for ATAG-passing boot loaders, where you can append a
DTB object to the zImage, and have the zImage update the DTB with
information from the ATAG stuff will only work with a _single_ DTB.

> I strongly disagree with the idea that keeping the DTB seperated from
> the kernel is appropriate for all users, or even most users. To me
> that only seems appropriate for certain kinds of hardware, eg general
> purpose computing devices that are designed to primarily run a Linux
> distro.

Actually, this is not really even our decision.  This direction was
rather set by Linus T. himself when he found out what has been going
on in OMAP, with all the massive amounts of data which are present in
the kernel.  He has said that he doesn't want that data carried in
the kernel source.  Hell, this is not the first time he's objected;
he's threatened to delete all our defconfig files because they're
getting too many.

So, like it or not, we're going to face the same problem with DTBs
that we face with the sprawing code we have in the kernel, and which
we've had with the defconfigs.  Linus _will_ at some point get pissed
off with them and threaten to delete them.

And it won't matter what you think one bit when Linus makes that
decision.  Nor what we think.  Because he'll either complain and give
an ultimatum, or he'll just do it.

> Disagree. We are already seeing patching now for 2nd generation DT
> bindings to fix flaws in bindings that were introduced earlier. I hope
> the rate will slow down, but the need will probably never go away
> completely. :(

This is where pressure back to people to stop them behaving like this
is important - and it _isn't_ being helped by having the DTBs as
part of the kernel - it makes it _too_ easy for this kind of stuff
to happen without proper controls.

> Multiple *kernel packages* is a big problem, one *kernel package* is
> generally not.
> 
> It is already the case on x86 that a kernel package can't boot out of
> the box. The distro builds a box-specific initramfs on boot that
> minimally includes enough modules to access the root fs
> storage. Grabbing a box specific DT as well is a tiny additional step.

You're confused there.  You're comparing the wrong things.

On x86, the modules needed for the rootfs are generally held in an
initramfs, because that provides an easy way to collect together the
parts of the system that are needed to find the rootfs.

However, that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about
DTB.  An initramfs doesn't describe the hardware.  So you're comparing
apples and oranges and expecting us to take you seriously for doing so.

What you should be comparing in this instance is DTB with ACPI.  ACPI
describes the hardware on which you're booting your x86 kernel.  It
says what devices are present in the system (which may change while
the kernel is running - think laptops which gain ports when you dock
them.)

You don't see x86 distros including large chunks of ACPI data on their
DVDs...  That's all provided by the motherboard OEM.

> Bear in mind, that like for storage, when the kernel is installed
> the system is *already running*. This means it knows what storage
> modules are needed, and similarly it knows the content of the DTB it
> is using. It can do three things with this:
>  - See if /lib/device-tree/.. contains a compatible DTB, if so use the
>    version from /lib
>  - Save the DTB to /boot/my-board-dtb and use it
>  - Realize that it is OEM provided and comes from the firmware, do nothing
> 
> So things can very much be fully automated.

You've a chicken and egg problem there.  If the kernel is already
running on a DT-based system, then it has already been provided with a
DTB.  That DTB is available from the kernel itself, and can be saved.
But what's the point if _that_ kernel was already able to get it from
somewhere - probably provided via the board firmware in the first place.

See?

At the point where you have your first kernel running for the install,
you must already be using the right DTB file which must have come from
somewhere.  The egg(DTB) must come before the chicken(kernel).

> > According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
> > updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
> > would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
> > have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?
> 
> The distros are going to include uboot packages and people are going
> to try and support a wide range of boards through uboot - so yah, on
> ARM distros are packaging full BIOS updates for ARM. This doesn't seem
> to be a problem.

I've not noticed ubuntu providing a kernel, let alone a uboot for my
OMAP boards nor for my Cubox...

> If the DTs are moved out of the kernel, then the distros will build
> and package them too.
> 
> Heck, on x86 some distros do make use of the runtime ACPI patching
> stuff to fix particularly broken firmware.

They may patch issues with the ACPI data, but they do _not_ include the
entire ACPI data structure for things like laptops and the like.  That's
the point - they don't want to include full ACPI data dumps because
then they're into the realm of having to know precisely all the details
of the platform that they're running on - and they probably don't have
enough information to know that.

For instance, how would it know if I docked my laptop and suddenly a
serial and printer port becomes available if it was using a fixed set
of data?

> > Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.
> 
> This stuff is never rejoicing. But give the distro two choices,
> 
>  - Include the /lib/device-tree/ .. stuff from the kernel build and
>    things will work robustly *on systems that require it*
>  - Don't, and a kernel update or firmware update might randomly result
>    in boot failure
> 
> Which do you think they will they pick?
> 
> Relying on OEMs to provide working firmware has been a *nightmare* on
> x86. There is no reason to think ARM OEMs would do any better.
> Minimizing the amount of OEM specific junk that needs to be used is a
> good thing.

All these arguments you're bringing up are arguments that have been made
against DT since before ARM went that route.  Grant Likely etc all made
assurances that this would _not_ be a problem, and that anyone making
incompatible DT changes would be taken out and shot (not literally, but
you get the idea.)

If what you're saying is true, then we've been mislead about DT, and we're
currently going through a pointless exercise which is only going to result
in increased complexity and more things to go wrong with booting a kernel.
And we should stop this DT farce now.

> Heck, just try to get an OEM supported mainline kernel for some of the
> eval boards they ship. Good luck....

What is being aimed for on things like OMAP is the ability to describe
the SoC and everything external to the SoC by DT.  What that means is
that the SoC configuration gets described by DT.  The external devices
like Ethernet controllers gets described by DT.  The keyboard matrix
gets described by DT.  And so forth.  Which should ultimately mean that
a new OMAP board gets support by just supplying the appropriate DT file.

Sure, it's not there yet (it's still being worked on, just like much of
the other DT conversion process) - remember, DT on ARM is _very_ new,
and is in its infancy.  We _expect_ things to change at the moment all
over the place because we're still developing various bits of basic
infrastructure necessary to describe parts of our SoCs - such as most
recently pin muxing.

Pin muxing hasn't been in DT before - it's a totally new concept there
which has had to be developed from scratch.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:11:06PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
> > bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 
> > for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute 
> > multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install 
> > media.
> 
> Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
> similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
> the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
> (call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
> loader.

If that's something that PPC does, great.  It's not something that
we have any support for on ARM, nor do we have any intention at
present to add support for it.

The stop-gap for ATAG-passing boot loaders, where you can append a
DTB object to the zImage, and have the zImage update the DTB with
information from the ATAG stuff will only work with a _single_ DTB.

> I strongly disagree with the idea that keeping the DTB seperated from
> the kernel is appropriate for all users, or even most users. To me
> that only seems appropriate for certain kinds of hardware, eg general
> purpose computing devices that are designed to primarily run a Linux
> distro.

Actually, this is not really even our decision.  This direction was
rather set by Linus T. himself when he found out what has been going
on in OMAP, with all the massive amounts of data which are present in
the kernel.  He has said that he doesn't want that data carried in
the kernel source.  Hell, this is not the first time he's objected;
he's threatened to delete all our defconfig files because they're
getting too many.

So, like it or not, we're going to face the same problem with DTBs
that we face with the sprawing code we have in the kernel, and which
we've had with the defconfigs.  Linus _will_ at some point get pissed
off with them and threaten to delete them.

And it won't matter what you think one bit when Linus makes that
decision.  Nor what we think.  Because he'll either complain and give
an ultimatum, or he'll just do it.

> Disagree. We are already seeing patching now for 2nd generation DT
> bindings to fix flaws in bindings that were introduced earlier. I hope
> the rate will slow down, but the need will probably never go away
> completely. :(

This is where pressure back to people to stop them behaving like this
is important - and it _isn't_ being helped by having the DTBs as
part of the kernel - it makes it _too_ easy for this kind of stuff
to happen without proper controls.

> Multiple *kernel packages* is a big problem, one *kernel package* is
> generally not.
> 
> It is already the case on x86 that a kernel package can't boot out of
> the box. The distro builds a box-specific initramfs on boot that
> minimally includes enough modules to access the root fs
> storage. Grabbing a box specific DT as well is a tiny additional step.

You're confused there.  You're comparing the wrong things.

On x86, the modules needed for the rootfs are generally held in an
initramfs, because that provides an easy way to collect together the
parts of the system that are needed to find the rootfs.

However, that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about
DTB.  An initramfs doesn't describe the hardware.  So you're comparing
apples and oranges and expecting us to take you seriously for doing so.

What you should be comparing in this instance is DTB with ACPI.  ACPI
describes the hardware on which you're booting your x86 kernel.  It
says what devices are present in the system (which may change while
the kernel is running - think laptops which gain ports when you dock
them.)

You don't see x86 distros including large chunks of ACPI data on their
DVDs...  That's all provided by the motherboard OEM.

> Bear in mind, that like for storage, when the kernel is installed
> the system is *already running*. This means it knows what storage
> modules are needed, and similarly it knows the content of the DTB it
> is using. It can do three things with this:
>  - See if /lib/device-tree/.. contains a compatible DTB, if so use the
>    version from /lib
>  - Save the DTB to /boot/my-board-dtb and use it
>  - Realize that it is OEM provided and comes from the firmware, do nothing
> 
> So things can very much be fully automated.

You've a chicken and egg problem there.  If the kernel is already
running on a DT-based system, then it has already been provided with a
DTB.  That DTB is available from the kernel itself, and can be saved.
But what's the point if _that_ kernel was already able to get it from
somewhere - probably provided via the board firmware in the first place.

See?

At the point where you have your first kernel running for the install,
you must already be using the right DTB file which must have come from
somewhere.  The egg(DTB) must come before the chicken(kernel).

> > According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
> > updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
> > would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
> > have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?
> 
> The distros are going to include uboot packages and people are going
> to try and support a wide range of boards through uboot - so yah, on
> ARM distros are packaging full BIOS updates for ARM. This doesn't seem
> to be a problem.

I've not noticed ubuntu providing a kernel, let alone a uboot for my
OMAP boards nor for my Cubox...

> If the DTs are moved out of the kernel, then the distros will build
> and package them too.
> 
> Heck, on x86 some distros do make use of the runtime ACPI patching
> stuff to fix particularly broken firmware.

They may patch issues with the ACPI data, but they do _not_ include the
entire ACPI data structure for things like laptops and the like.  That's
the point - they don't want to include full ACPI data dumps because
then they're into the realm of having to know precisely all the details
of the platform that they're running on - and they probably don't have
enough information to know that.

For instance, how would it know if I docked my laptop and suddenly a
serial and printer port becomes available if it was using a fixed set
of data?

> > Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.
> 
> This stuff is never rejoicing. But give the distro two choices,
> 
>  - Include the /lib/device-tree/ .. stuff from the kernel build and
>    things will work robustly *on systems that require it*
>  - Don't, and a kernel update or firmware update might randomly result
>    in boot failure
> 
> Which do you think they will they pick?
> 
> Relying on OEMs to provide working firmware has been a *nightmare* on
> x86. There is no reason to think ARM OEMs would do any better.
> Minimizing the amount of OEM specific junk that needs to be used is a
> good thing.

All these arguments you're bringing up are arguments that have been made
against DT since before ARM went that route.  Grant Likely etc all made
assurances that this would _not_ be a problem, and that anyone making
incompatible DT changes would be taken out and shot (not literally, but
you get the idea.)

If what you're saying is true, then we've been mislead about DT, and we're
currently going through a pointless exercise which is only going to result
in increased complexity and more things to go wrong with booting a kernel.
And we should stop this DT farce now.

> Heck, just try to get an OEM supported mainline kernel for some of the
> eval boards they ship. Good luck....

What is being aimed for on things like OMAP is the ability to describe
the SoC and everything external to the SoC by DT.  What that means is
that the SoC configuration gets described by DT.  The external devices
like Ethernet controllers gets described by DT.  The keyboard matrix
gets described by DT.  And so forth.  Which should ultimately mean that
a new OMAP board gets support by just supplying the appropriate DT file.

Sure, it's not there yet (it's still being worked on, just like much of
the other DT conversion process) - remember, DT on ARM is _very_ new,
and is in its infancy.  We _expect_ things to change at the moment all
over the place because we're still developing various bits of basic
infrastructure necessary to describe parts of our SoCs - such as most
recently pin muxing.

Pin muxing hasn't been in DT before - it's a totally new concept there
which has had to be developed from scratch.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:11:06PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
> > bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 
> > for your embedded system.  The "wrong message" here is to distribute 
> > multiple DTBs around, whether it is with FIT or on a distro install 
> > media.
> 
> Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
> similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
> the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
> (call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
> loader.

If that's something that PPC does, great.  It's not something that
we have any support for on ARM, nor do we have any intention at
present to add support for it.

The stop-gap for ATAG-passing boot loaders, where you can append a
DTB object to the zImage, and have the zImage update the DTB with
information from the ATAG stuff will only work with a _single_ DTB.

> I strongly disagree with the idea that keeping the DTB seperated from
> the kernel is appropriate for all users, or even most users. To me
> that only seems appropriate for certain kinds of hardware, eg general
> purpose computing devices that are designed to primarily run a Linux
> distro.

Actually, this is not really even our decision.  This direction was
rather set by Linus T. himself when he found out what has been going
on in OMAP, with all the massive amounts of data which are present in
the kernel.  He has said that he doesn't want that data carried in
the kernel source.  Hell, this is not the first time he's objected;
he's threatened to delete all our defconfig files because they're
getting too many.

So, like it or not, we're going to face the same problem with DTBs
that we face with the sprawing code we have in the kernel, and which
we've had with the defconfigs.  Linus _will_ at some point get pissed
off with them and threaten to delete them.

And it won't matter what you think one bit when Linus makes that
decision.  Nor what we think.  Because he'll either complain and give
an ultimatum, or he'll just do it.

> Disagree. We are already seeing patching now for 2nd generation DT
> bindings to fix flaws in bindings that were introduced earlier. I hope
> the rate will slow down, but the need will probably never go away
> completely. :(

This is where pressure back to people to stop them behaving like this
is important - and it _isn't_ being helped by having the DTBs as
part of the kernel - it makes it _too_ easy for this kind of stuff
to happen without proper controls.

> Multiple *kernel packages* is a big problem, one *kernel package* is
> generally not.
> 
> It is already the case on x86 that a kernel package can't boot out of
> the box. The distro builds a box-specific initramfs on boot that
> minimally includes enough modules to access the root fs
> storage. Grabbing a box specific DT as well is a tiny additional step.

You're confused there.  You're comparing the wrong things.

On x86, the modules needed for the rootfs are generally held in an
initramfs, because that provides an easy way to collect together the
parts of the system that are needed to find the rootfs.

However, that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about
DTB.  An initramfs doesn't describe the hardware.  So you're comparing
apples and oranges and expecting us to take you seriously for doing so.

What you should be comparing in this instance is DTB with ACPI.  ACPI
describes the hardware on which you're booting your x86 kernel.  It
says what devices are present in the system (which may change while
the kernel is running - think laptops which gain ports when you dock
them.)

You don't see x86 distros including large chunks of ACPI data on their
DVDs...  That's all provided by the motherboard OEM.

> Bear in mind, that like for storage, when the kernel is installed
> the system is *already running*. This means it knows what storage
> modules are needed, and similarly it knows the content of the DTB it
> is using. It can do three things with this:
>  - See if /lib/device-tree/.. contains a compatible DTB, if so use the
>    version from /lib
>  - Save the DTB to /boot/my-board-dtb and use it
>  - Realize that it is OEM provided and comes from the firmware, do nothing
> 
> So things can very much be fully automated.

You've a chicken and egg problem there.  If the kernel is already
running on a DT-based system, then it has already been provided with a
DTB.  That DTB is available from the kernel itself, and can be saved.
But what's the point if _that_ kernel was already able to get it from
somewhere - probably provided via the board firmware in the first place.

See?

At the point where you have your first kernel running for the install,
you must already be using the right DTB file which must have come from
somewhere.  The egg(DTB) must come before the chicken(kernel).

> > According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
> > updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
> > would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
> > have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?
> 
> The distros are going to include uboot packages and people are going
> to try and support a wide range of boards through uboot - so yah, on
> ARM distros are packaging full BIOS updates for ARM. This doesn't seem
> to be a problem.

I've not noticed ubuntu providing a kernel, let alone a uboot for my
OMAP boards nor for my Cubox...

> If the DTs are moved out of the kernel, then the distros will build
> and package them too.
> 
> Heck, on x86 some distros do make use of the runtime ACPI patching
> stuff to fix particularly broken firmware.

They may patch issues with the ACPI data, but they do _not_ include the
entire ACPI data structure for things like laptops and the like.  That's
the point - they don't want to include full ACPI data dumps because
then they're into the realm of having to know precisely all the details
of the platform that they're running on - and they probably don't have
enough information to know that.

For instance, how would it know if I docked my laptop and suddenly a
serial and printer port becomes available if it was using a fixed set
of data?

> > Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.
> 
> This stuff is never rejoicing. But give the distro two choices,
> 
>  - Include the /lib/device-tree/ .. stuff from the kernel build and
>    things will work robustly *on systems that require it*
>  - Don't, and a kernel update or firmware update might randomly result
>    in boot failure
> 
> Which do you think they will they pick?
> 
> Relying on OEMs to provide working firmware has been a *nightmare* on
> x86. There is no reason to think ARM OEMs would do any better.
> Minimizing the amount of OEM specific junk that needs to be used is a
> good thing.

All these arguments you're bringing up are arguments that have been made
against DT since before ARM went that route.  Grant Likely etc all made
assurances that this would _not_ be a problem, and that anyone making
incompatible DT changes would be taken out and shot (not literally, but
you get the idea.)

If what you're saying is true, then we've been mislead about DT, and we're
currently going through a pointless exercise which is only going to result
in increased complexity and more things to go wrong with booting a kernel.
And we should stop this DT farce now.

> Heck, just try to get an OEM supported mainline kernel for some of the
> eval boards they ship. Good luck....

What is being aimed for on things like OMAP is the ability to describe
the SoC and everything external to the SoC by DT.  What that means is
that the SoC configuration gets described by DT.  The external devices
like Ethernet controllers gets described by DT.  The keyboard matrix
gets described by DT.  And so forth.  Which should ultimately mean that
a new OMAP board gets support by just supplying the appropriate DT file.

Sure, it's not there yet (it's still being worked on, just like much of
the other DT conversion process) - remember, DT on ARM is _very_ new,
and is in its infancy.  We _expect_ things to change at the moment all
over the place because we're still developing various bits of basic
infrastructure necessary to describe parts of our SoCs - such as most
recently pin muxing.

Pin muxing hasn't been in DT before - it's a totally new concept there
which has had to be developed from scratch.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

And I'm just about to set my mailer up to automatically drop the uboot
mailing list from future replies.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

And I'm just about to set my mailer up to automatically drop the uboot
mailing list from future replies.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:27:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> > Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
> > similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
> > the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
> > (call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
> > loader.
> 
> If that's something that PPC does, great.  It's not something that
> we have any support for on ARM, nor do we have any intention at
> present to add support for it.

Like I said, we do it as part of our boot structure, the mainline
kernel doesn't really get affected by this. I'm only trying to
describe my experience with real systems, in the field with DTB today.

> So, like it or not, we're going to face the same problem with DTBs
> that we face with the sprawing code we have in the kernel, and which
> we've had with the defconfigs.  Linus _will_ at some point get pissed
> off with them and threaten to delete them.

I see what you are saying (and I've seen the thread you are talking
about).
 
> > It is already the case on x86 that a kernel package can't boot out of
> > the box. The distro builds a box-specific initramfs on boot that
> > minimally includes enough modules to access the root fs
> > storage. Grabbing a box specific DT as well is a tiny additional step.
> 
> You're confused there.  You're comparing the wrong things.

No, I'm not - I'm drawing an analog. The initramfs and dtb are both
sensitive to the machine's hardware and the distro scripts can already
handle the existing hardware sensitivity fine.

The fact the dtb is 'first' and the intitramfs is 'last' in the boot
cycle doesn't matter at the point the distro script is run.

> However, that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about
> DTB.  An initramfs doesn't describe the hardware.  So you're comparing
> apples and oranges and expecting us to take you seriously for doing so.

You are mincing details. When the distro scripts put a 'insmod
megaraid' in the initramfs scripts so that it can access the disk that
has the rootfs it is getting pretty damn close to 'describing the
hardware'. Hence the analog I've drawn.

In any event, if the distr boot scripts mess up the initramfs or
provide the wrong dtb, the system doesn't boot.

> What you should be comparing in this instance is DTB with ACPI.  ACPI
> describes the hardware on which you're booting your x86 kernel.  It
> says what devices are present in the system (which may change while
> the kernel is running - think laptops which gain ports when you dock
> them.)

If we are being pedantic, ACPI does a heck of a lot more than
describing hardware. DT is closer to the old static x86 Intel MP
table.

But it doesn't matter, ACPI, and even Intel MP are part of a
full-featured x86 boot firmware. In that sort of model lots of stuff
like pinmux, low level CPU setup, memory region allocation, etc is
done by the firmware.

The embedded scenarios I am talking about have very simple firmware
and boot the kernel on 'bare metal' where Linux is expected to take
care of nearly everything on its own.

As I've said, I think bare metal embedded is different from something
with a full featured firmware and what I'm trying to say is that they
deserve different treatments for their DTB.

For this reason, I'm not sure that equating ACPI as part of a full
featured firmware boot to DT in a bare metal scenario is entirely
appropriate.

> > Bear in mind, that like for storage, when the kernel is installed
> > the system is *already running*. This means it knows what storage
> > modules are needed, and similarly it knows the content of the DTB it
> > is using. It can do three things with this:
> >  - See if /lib/device-tree/.. contains a compatible DTB, if so use the
> >    version from /lib
> >  - Save the DTB to /boot/my-board-dtb and use it
> >  - Realize that it is OEM provided and comes from the firmware, do nothing
> > 
> > So things can very much be fully automated.
> 
> You've a chicken and egg problem there.  If the kernel is already
> running on a DT-based system, then it has already been provided with a
> DTB.  That DTB is available from the kernel itself, and can be saved.
> But what's the point if _that_ kernel was already able to get it from
> somewhere - probably provided via the board firmware in the first place.

As Steven Warren pointed out, the bootloaders have the ability to
network boot a kernel, dtb, and initramfs in one go. So the install
instructions for such systems simply point to the correct combination
of all three from the install media, served over tftp or whatever.

Saving the DTB is for the case where the install media/distro does
not have a DTB for this system. In this case the initial boot would
have been done with an 'out of tree' DTB that should be saved for the
next boot.

Don't forget that a distro initrd still has to contain enough modules
to access the install media, so it is very possible that the initial
distro installation on a virigin system will still require some hoops
to get things together.

> currently going through a pointless exercise which is only going to result
> in increased complexity and more things to go wrong with booting a kernel.
> And we should stop this DT farce now.

Again, I disagree.. DT really does make things simpler and having to
get a generic kernel + the right DTB is much better than having to
find a specific kernel with exactly the right CONFIG options set.

> made against DT since before ARM went that route.  Grant Likely etc
> all made assurances that this would _not_ be a problem, and that
> anyone making incompatible DT changes would be taken out and shot
> (not literally, but you get the idea.)

.. and I certainly fully support that.

> What is being aimed for on things like OMAP is the ability to describe
> the SoC and everything external to the SoC by DT.  What that means is
> that the SoC configuration gets described by DT.  The external devices
> like Ethernet controllers gets described by DT.  The keyboard matrix
> gets described by DT.  And so forth.  Which should ultimately mean that
> a new OMAP board gets support by just supplying the appropriate DT file.

Right, and I think that this is very valuable in-of-itself.

Don't get me wrong - I like DT, I think it is worthwile. I'm just
exploring the idea that the direction of keeping the DT and kernel
very separated (ala x86) is exactly the opposite of what we have had
success with, in the ARM/PPC embedded case.

I really think both arrangements are valid, desirable, use cases for
dtb.

Regards,
Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:27:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> > Actually we do this on PPC, the boot kernel image runs on three
> > similar hardware platforms, the image has three DTBs built into it and
> > the right one is selected at runtime. The kernel boot image does this
> > (call it a second stage boot loader), not the primary boot
> > loader.
> 
> If that's something that PPC does, great.  It's not something that
> we have any support for on ARM, nor do we have any intention at
> present to add support for it.

Like I said, we do it as part of our boot structure, the mainline
kernel doesn't really get affected by this. I'm only trying to
describe my experience with real systems, in the field with DTB today.

> So, like it or not, we're going to face the same problem with DTBs
> that we face with the sprawing code we have in the kernel, and which
> we've had with the defconfigs.  Linus _will_ at some point get pissed
> off with them and threaten to delete them.

I see what you are saying (and I've seen the thread you are talking
about).
 
> > It is already the case on x86 that a kernel package can't boot out of
> > the box. The distro builds a box-specific initramfs on boot that
> > minimally includes enough modules to access the root fs
> > storage. Grabbing a box specific DT as well is a tiny additional step.
> 
> You're confused there.  You're comparing the wrong things.

No, I'm not - I'm drawing an analog. The initramfs and dtb are both
sensitive to the machine's hardware and the distro scripts can already
handle the existing hardware sensitivity fine.

The fact the dtb is 'first' and the intitramfs is 'last' in the boot
cycle doesn't matter at the point the distro script is run.

> However, that's not what we're talking about when we're talking about
> DTB.  An initramfs doesn't describe the hardware.  So you're comparing
> apples and oranges and expecting us to take you seriously for doing so.

You are mincing details. When the distro scripts put a 'insmod
megaraid' in the initramfs scripts so that it can access the disk that
has the rootfs it is getting pretty damn close to 'describing the
hardware'. Hence the analog I've drawn.

In any event, if the distr boot scripts mess up the initramfs or
provide the wrong dtb, the system doesn't boot.

> What you should be comparing in this instance is DTB with ACPI.  ACPI
> describes the hardware on which you're booting your x86 kernel.  It
> says what devices are present in the system (which may change while
> the kernel is running - think laptops which gain ports when you dock
> them.)

If we are being pedantic, ACPI does a heck of a lot more than
describing hardware. DT is closer to the old static x86 Intel MP
table.

But it doesn't matter, ACPI, and even Intel MP are part of a
full-featured x86 boot firmware. In that sort of model lots of stuff
like pinmux, low level CPU setup, memory region allocation, etc is
done by the firmware.

The embedded scenarios I am talking about have very simple firmware
and boot the kernel on 'bare metal' where Linux is expected to take
care of nearly everything on its own.

As I've said, I think bare metal embedded is different from something
with a full featured firmware and what I'm trying to say is that they
deserve different treatments for their DTB.

For this reason, I'm not sure that equating ACPI as part of a full
featured firmware boot to DT in a bare metal scenario is entirely
appropriate.

> > Bear in mind, that like for storage, when the kernel is installed
> > the system is *already running*. This means it knows what storage
> > modules are needed, and similarly it knows the content of the DTB it
> > is using. It can do three things with this:
> >  - See if /lib/device-tree/.. contains a compatible DTB, if so use the
> >    version from /lib
> >  - Save the DTB to /boot/my-board-dtb and use it
> >  - Realize that it is OEM provided and comes from the firmware, do nothing
> > 
> > So things can very much be fully automated.
> 
> You've a chicken and egg problem there.  If the kernel is already
> running on a DT-based system, then it has already been provided with a
> DTB.  That DTB is available from the kernel itself, and can be saved.
> But what's the point if _that_ kernel was already able to get it from
> somewhere - probably provided via the board firmware in the first place.

As Steven Warren pointed out, the bootloaders have the ability to
network boot a kernel, dtb, and initramfs in one go. So the install
instructions for such systems simply point to the correct combination
of all three from the install media, served over tftp or whatever.

Saving the DTB is for the case where the install media/distro does
not have a DTB for this system. In this case the initial boot would
have been done with an 'out of tree' DTB that should be saved for the
next boot.

Don't forget that a distro initrd still has to contain enough modules
to access the install media, so it is very possible that the initial
distro installation on a virigin system will still require some hoops
to get things together.

> currently going through a pointless exercise which is only going to result
> in increased complexity and more things to go wrong with booting a kernel.
> And we should stop this DT farce now.

Again, I disagree.. DT really does make things simpler and having to
get a generic kernel + the right DTB is much better than having to
find a specific kernel with exactly the right CONFIG options set.

> made against DT since before ARM went that route.  Grant Likely etc
> all made assurances that this would _not_ be a problem, and that
> anyone making incompatible DT changes would be taken out and shot
> (not literally, but you get the idea.)

.. and I certainly fully support that.

> What is being aimed for on things like OMAP is the ability to describe
> the SoC and everything external to the SoC by DT.  What that means is
> that the SoC configuration gets described by DT.  The external devices
> like Ethernet controllers gets described by DT.  The keyboard matrix
> gets described by DT.  And so forth.  Which should ultimately mean that
> a new OMAP board gets support by just supplying the appropriate DT file.

Right, and I think that this is very valuable in-of-itself.

Don't get me wrong - I like DT, I think it is worthwile. I'm just
exploring the idea that the direction of keeping the DT and kernel
very separated (ala x86) is exactly the opposite of what we have had
success with, in the ARM/PPC embedded case.

I really think both arrangements are valid, desirable, use cases for
dtb.

Regards,
Jason

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Nicolas,

In message <alpine.LFD.2.03.1302211624561.6419@syhkavp.arg> you wrote:
> 
> No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
> bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 

Actually this is neither the only, nor even the primary purpose of FIT
images; these have a much wider scope of usage scenarios.

> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).

There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
does not apply.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
GUIs  are  virtually  useless.  Learn  tools.  They're  configurable,
scriptable, automatable, cron-able, interoperable, etc. We don't need
no brain-dead winslurping monolithic claptrap.
                               -- Tom Christiansen in 371140df@csnews

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Nicolas,

In message <alpine.LFD.2.03.1302211624561.6419@syhkavp.arg> you wrote:
> 
> No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
> bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 

Actually this is neither the only, nor even the primary purpose of FIT
images; these have a much wider scope of usage scenarios.

> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).

There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
does not apply.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
GUIs  are  virtually  useless.  Learn  tools.  They're  configurable,
scriptable, automatable, cron-able, interoperable, etc. We don't need
no brain-dead winslurping monolithic claptrap.
                               -- Tom Christiansen in 371140df at csnews

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Nicolas,

In message <alpine.LFD.2.03.1302211624561.6419@syhkavp.arg> you wrote:
> 
> No it is not.  FIT is about bundling a multi-platform kernel with a 
> bunch of DTBs together in a single file.  I don't think you need that 

Actually this is neither the only, nor even the primary purpose of FIT
images; these have a much wider scope of usage scenarios.

> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).

There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
does not apply.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
GUIs  are  virtually  useless.  Learn  tools.  They're  configurable,
scriptable, automatable, cron-able, interoperable, etc. We don't need
no brain-dead winslurping monolithic claptrap.
                               -- Tom Christiansen in 371140df at csnews

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> > The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
> > own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> > no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
> 
> There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
> does not apply.

Agreed.. We do that here as well, the DT is also used to describe the
functionality inside FPGA(s). We do things like declare a GPIO
controller inside the FPGA, then stack the bitbang MDIO/I2C on top of
that, then declare a bunch of devices on those busses. DT makes this
extremely straightforward.

However, it is critical that the DT, kernel and FPGA are matched
together - we always arrange things so that the DTB, kernel and FPGA
config are bundled together and update atomically during firmware
upgrade.

Xilinx's Zynq is a great example of this kind of stuff, FWIW. IIRC
Xilinx has a DT generator from their IP tools, so you can literally go
into their design software, configure the hardware IP blocks, and get
back a FPGA config and a DT to go with it.

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> > The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
> > own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> > no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
> 
> There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
> does not apply.

Agreed.. We do that here as well, the DT is also used to describe the
functionality inside FPGA(s). We do things like declare a GPIO
controller inside the FPGA, then stack the bitbang MDIO/I2C on top of
that, then declare a bunch of devices on those busses. DT makes this
extremely straightforward.

However, it is critical that the DT, kernel and FPGA are matched
together - we always arrange things so that the DTB, kernel and FPGA
config are bundled together and update atomically during firmware
upgrade.

Xilinx's Zynq is a great example of this kind of stuff, FWIW. IIRC
Xilinx has a DT generator from their IP tools, so you can literally go
into their design software, configure the hardware IP blocks, and get
back a FPGA config and a DT to go with it.

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> > The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
> > own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> > no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
> 
> There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
> does not apply.

Agreed.. We do that here as well, the DT is also used to describe the
functionality inside FPGA(s). We do things like declare a GPIO
controller inside the FPGA, then stack the bitbang MDIO/I2C on top of
that, then declare a bunch of devices on those busses. DT makes this
extremely straightforward.

However, it is critical that the DT, kernel and FPGA are matched
together - we always arrange things so that the DTB, kernel and FPGA
config are bundled together and update atomically during firmware
upgrade.

Xilinx's Zynq is a great example of this kind of stuff, FWIW. IIRC
Xilinx has a DT generator from their IP tools, so you can literally go
into their design software, configure the hardware IP blocks, and get
back a FPGA config and a DT to go with it.

Jason

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Rob Herring]

On 02/21/2013 05:28 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> 
>>> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
>>> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
>>> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
>>
>> There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
>> does not apply.
> 
> Agreed.. We do that here as well, the DT is also used to describe the
> functionality inside FPGA(s). We do things like declare a GPIO
> controller inside the FPGA, then stack the bitbang MDIO/I2C on top of
> that, then declare a bunch of devices on those busses. DT makes this
> extremely straightforward.
> 
> However, it is critical that the DT, kernel and FPGA are matched
> together - we always arrange things so that the DTB, kernel and FPGA
> config are bundled together and update atomically during firmware
> upgrade.
> 
> Xilinx's Zynq is a great example of this kind of stuff, FWIW. IIRC
> Xilinx has a DT generator from their IP tools, so you can literally go
> into their design software, configure the hardware IP blocks, and get
> back a FPGA config and a DT to go with it.
> 

The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.

Rob

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Rob Herring]

On 02/21/2013 05:28 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> 
>>> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
>>> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
>>> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
>>
>> There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
>> does not apply.
> 
> Agreed.. We do that here as well, the DT is also used to describe the
> functionality inside FPGA(s). We do things like declare a GPIO
> controller inside the FPGA, then stack the bitbang MDIO/I2C on top of
> that, then declare a bunch of devices on those busses. DT makes this
> extremely straightforward.
> 
> However, it is critical that the DT, kernel and FPGA are matched
> together - we always arrange things so that the DTB, kernel and FPGA
> config are bundled together and update atomically during firmware
> upgrade.
> 
> Xilinx's Zynq is a great example of this kind of stuff, FWIW. IIRC
> Xilinx has a DT generator from their IP tools, so you can literally go
> into their design software, configure the hardware IP blocks, and get
> back a FPGA config and a DT to go with it.
> 

The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.

Rob

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Rob Herring]

On 02/21/2013 05:28 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> 
>>> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
>>> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
>>> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
>>
>> There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
>> does not apply.
> 
> Agreed.. We do that here as well, the DT is also used to describe the
> functionality inside FPGA(s). We do things like declare a GPIO
> controller inside the FPGA, then stack the bitbang MDIO/I2C on top of
> that, then declare a bunch of devices on those busses. DT makes this
> extremely straightforward.
> 
> However, it is critical that the DT, kernel and FPGA are matched
> together - we always arrange things so that the DTB, kernel and FPGA
> config are bundled together and update atomically during firmware
> upgrade.
> 
> Xilinx's Zynq is a great example of this kind of stuff, FWIW. IIRC
> Xilinx has a DT generator from their IP tools, so you can literally go
> into their design software, configure the hardware IP blocks, and get
> back a FPGA config and a DT to go with it.
> 

The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.

Rob

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Rob Herring]

On 02/21/2013 05:28 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:18:48AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> 
>>> The DT is meant to describe hardware.  As far as I know, the hardware I 
>>> own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
>>> no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
>>
>> There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
>> does not apply.
> 
> Agreed.. We do that here as well, the DT is also used to describe the
> functionality inside FPGA(s). We do things like declare a GPIO
> controller inside the FPGA, then stack the bitbang MDIO/I2C on top of
> that, then declare a bunch of devices on those busses. DT makes this
> extremely straightforward.
> 
> However, it is critical that the DT, kernel and FPGA are matched
> together - we always arrange things so that the DTB, kernel and FPGA
> config are bundled together and update atomically during firmware
> upgrade.
> 
> Xilinx's Zynq is a great example of this kind of stuff, FWIW. IIRC
> Xilinx has a DT generator from their IP tools, so you can literally go
> into their design software, configure the hardware IP blocks, and get
> back a FPGA config and a DT to go with it.
> 

The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.

Rob

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:05PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.

Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..

I'm thinking something like adding a tree below a PCI controller
describing a PCI device and sub nodes, similar to what Thierry was
doing for his Avionics. How would interrupt maps and phandles be
managed across the main dtb and the 'hot plugged' dtb?

Regards,
Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:05PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.

Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..

I'm thinking something like adding a tree below a PCI controller
describing a PCI device and sub nodes, similar to what Thierry was
doing for his Avionics. How would interrupt maps and phandles be
managed across the main dtb and the 'hot plugged' dtb?

Regards,
Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:05PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.

Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..

I'm thinking something like adding a tree below a PCI controller
describing a PCI device and sub nodes, similar to what Thierry was
doing for his Avionics. How would interrupt maps and phandles be
managed across the main dtb and the 'hot plugged' dtb?

Regards,
Jason

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Rob Herring]

On 02/21/2013 08:22 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:05PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> 
>> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
>> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
>> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.
> 
> Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
> Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..
> 

Look at "Introducing Device Tree Overlays" on devicetree-discuss and lkml.

> I'm thinking something like adding a tree below a PCI controller
> describing a PCI device and sub nodes, similar to what Thierry was
> doing for his Avionics. How would interrupt maps and phandles be
> managed across the main dtb and the 'hot plugged' dtb?

Generally you don't describe the devices on PCI unless there are
non-discoverable aspects like a sideband gpio.

Rob

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Rob Herring]

On 02/21/2013 08:22 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:05PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> 
>> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
>> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
>> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.
> 
> Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
> Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..
> 

Look at "Introducing Device Tree Overlays" on devicetree-discuss and lkml.

> I'm thinking something like adding a tree below a PCI controller
> describing a PCI device and sub nodes, similar to what Thierry was
> doing for his Avionics. How would interrupt maps and phandles be
> managed across the main dtb and the 'hot plugged' dtb?

Generally you don't describe the devices on PCI unless there are
non-discoverable aspects like a sideband gpio.

Rob

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Rob Herring]

On 02/21/2013 08:22 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:05PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> 
>> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
>> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
>> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.
> 
> Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
> Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..
> 

Look at "Introducing Device Tree Overlays" on devicetree-discuss and lkml.

> I'm thinking something like adding a tree below a PCI controller
> describing a PCI device and sub nodes, similar to what Thierry was
> doing for his Avionics. How would interrupt maps and phandles be
> managed across the main dtb and the 'hot plugged' dtb?

Generally you don't describe the devices on PCI unless there are
non-discoverable aspects like a sideband gpio.

Rob

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Kridner]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:05PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
>> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
>> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.
>
> Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
> Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..

This doesn't answer the full question on how FPGA tools generate DTB,
but it is a huge problem for BeagleBone add-on hardware that we have
some mechanism to dynamically load DT fragments. Pantelis posted some
work in that direction[1] and has continued development of his patches
and we've been using those extensively with BeagleBone kernel
development[2].

It would be great if the FPGA folks would get on-board in supporting
the dynamically loadable DT overlay fragments by reviewing and
supporting upstream acceptance of the code.

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/531569/
[2] http://github.com/beagleboard/kernel/tree/3.8

>
> I'm thinking something like adding a tree below a PCI controller
> describing a PCI device and sub nodes, similar to what Thierry was
> doing for his Avionics. How would interrupt maps and phandles be
> managed across the main dtb and the 'hot plugged' dtb?
>
> Regards,
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot@lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Kridner]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:05PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
>> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
>> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.
>
> Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
> Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..

This doesn't answer the full question on how FPGA tools generate DTB,
but it is a huge problem for BeagleBone add-on hardware that we have
some mechanism to dynamically load DT fragments. Pantelis posted some
work in that direction[1] and has continued development of his patches
and we've been using those extensively with BeagleBone kernel
development[2].

It would be great if the FPGA folks would get on-board in supporting
the dynamically loadable DT overlay fragments by reviewing and
supporting upstream acceptance of the code.

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/531569/
[2] http://github.com/beagleboard/kernel/tree/3.8

>
> I'm thinking something like adding a tree below a PCI controller
> describing a PCI device and sub nodes, similar to what Thierry was
> doing for his Avionics. How would interrupt maps and phandles be
> managed across the main dtb and the 'hot plugged' dtb?
>
> Regards,
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 02:56:33AM -0500, Jason Kridner wrote:
> >> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
> >> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
> >> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.
> >
> > Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
> > Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..
> 
> This doesn't answer the full question on how FPGA tools generate DTB,
> but it is a huge problem for BeagleBone add-on hardware that we have

In all my cases I hand code the DT's for the FPGA IP, they get quite
big, the one I'm looking at now has over 17 DT nodes inside the FPGA
already. This is why we are re-using the DT framework to describe the
chip, not building a C coded PCI driver to do the same work.

> some mechanism to dynamically load DT fragments. Pantelis posted some
> work in that direction[1] and has continued development of his patches
> and we've been using those extensively with BeagleBone kernel
> development[2].

Yes, I saw this. They look really interesting, I think the notion of
hot plugging a DT fragment into the main DT is useful for many
applications..

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 02:56:33AM -0500, Jason Kridner wrote:
> >> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
> >> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
> >> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.
> >
> > Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
> > Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..
> 
> This doesn't answer the full question on how FPGA tools generate DTB,
> but it is a huge problem for BeagleBone add-on hardware that we have

In all my cases I hand code the DT's for the FPGA IP, they get quite
big, the one I'm looking at now has over 17 DT nodes inside the FPGA
already. This is why we are re-using the DT framework to describe the
chip, not building a C coded PCI driver to do the same work.

> some mechanism to dynamically load DT fragments. Pantelis posted some
> work in that direction[1] and has continued development of his patches
> and we've been using those extensively with BeagleBone kernel
> development[2].

Yes, I saw this. They look really interesting, I think the notion of
hot plugging a DT fragment into the main DT is useful for many
applications..

Jason

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 02:56:33AM -0500, Jason Kridner wrote:
> >> The desired FPGA use case is DT updates after booting the kernel. This
> >> has nothing to do with FIT images. And if the FPGA tools generate the
> >> DTB, then it is certainly not tied to the kernel.
> >
> > Completely unrelated, but do you have any pointer for how to do this?
> > Hot plugging a 'dtb fragment' into the kernel would be really handy..
> 
> This doesn't answer the full question on how FPGA tools generate DTB,
> but it is a huge problem for BeagleBone add-on hardware that we have

In all my cases I hand code the DT's for the FPGA IP, they get quite
big, the one I'm looking at now has over 17 DT nodes inside the FPGA
already. This is why we are re-using the DT framework to describe the
chip, not building a C coded PCI driver to do the same work.

> some mechanism to dynamically load DT fragments. Pantelis posted some
> work in that direction[1] and has continued development of his patches
> and we've been using those extensively with BeagleBone kernel
> development[2].

Yes, I saw this. They look really interesting, I think the notion of
hot plugging a DT fragment into the main DT is useful for many
applications..

Jason

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Jason,

In message <20130221232821.GA2823@obsidianresearch.com> you wrote:
> 
> > > own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> > > no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
> > 
> > There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
> > does not apply.
> 
> Agreed.. We do that here as well, the DT is also used to describe the
> functionality inside FPGA(s). We do things like declare a GPIO
> controller inside the FPGA, then stack the bitbang MDIO/I2C on top of
> that, then declare a bunch of devices on those busses. DT makes this
> extremely straightforward.
> 
> However, it is critical that the DT, kernel and FPGA are matched
> together - we always arrange things so that the DTB, kernel and FPGA
> config are bundled together and update atomically during firmware
> upgrade.

Agreed.

> Xilinx's Zynq is a great example of this kind of stuff, FWIW. IIRC

Indeed - Xilinx's Zynq, Altera's SoC FPGA, and others.

Such highly flexible hardware configurations require a new level of
software support that by far exceeds the classic static setups of more
"PC-like" systems where the only change you would expect is adding or
removing some PCI cards or the like.


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
Don't tell me how hard you work.  Tell me how much you get done.
                                                     -- James J. Ling

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Jason,

In message <20130221232821.GA2823@obsidianresearch.com> you wrote:
> 
> > > own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> > > no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
> > 
> > There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
> > does not apply.
> 
> Agreed.. We do that here as well, the DT is also used to describe the
> functionality inside FPGA(s). We do things like declare a GPIO
> controller inside the FPGA, then stack the bitbang MDIO/I2C on top of
> that, then declare a bunch of devices on those busses. DT makes this
> extremely straightforward.
> 
> However, it is critical that the DT, kernel and FPGA are matched
> together - we always arrange things so that the DTB, kernel and FPGA
> config are bundled together and update atomically during firmware
> upgrade.

Agreed.

> Xilinx's Zynq is a great example of this kind of stuff, FWIW. IIRC

Indeed - Xilinx's Zynq, Altera's SoC FPGA, and others.

Such highly flexible hardware configurations require a new level of
software support that by far exceeds the classic static setups of more
"PC-like" systems where the only change you would expect is adding or
removing some PCI cards or the like.


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Don't tell me how hard you work.  Tell me how much you get done.
                                                     -- James J. Ling

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Jason,

In message <20130221232821.GA2823@obsidianresearch.com> you wrote:
> 
> > > own seems to be rather static and stable, and unlike software there is 
> > > no way I can change it (soldering irons don't count).
> > 
> > There is other hardware available (for example FPGA based) where this
> > does not apply.
> 
> Agreed.. We do that here as well, the DT is also used to describe the
> functionality inside FPGA(s). We do things like declare a GPIO
> controller inside the FPGA, then stack the bitbang MDIO/I2C on top of
> that, then declare a bunch of devices on those busses. DT makes this
> extremely straightforward.
> 
> However, it is critical that the DT, kernel and FPGA are matched
> together - we always arrange things so that the DTB, kernel and FPGA
> config are bundled together and update atomically during firmware
> upgrade.

Agreed.

> Xilinx's Zynq is a great example of this kind of stuff, FWIW. IIRC

Indeed - Xilinx's Zynq, Altera's SoC FPGA, and others.

Such highly flexible hardware configurations require a new level of
software support that by far exceeds the classic static setups of more
"PC-like" systems where the only change you would expect is adding or
removing some PCI cards or the like.


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Don't tell me how hard you work.  Tell me how much you get done.
                                                     -- James J. Ling

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 03:05 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
...
>> Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
>> there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.
> 
> But it is!  Even shipping multiple kernels _is_ a problem for them.  
> Hence this multi-platform kernel effort.  Otherwise why would we bother?
> 
> According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
> updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
> would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
> have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?
> 
> Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.

Well they ship x86 CPU firmware updates according to the boot log on one
of my systems at least...

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 03:05 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
...
>> Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
>> there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.
> 
> But it is!  Even shipping multiple kernels _is_ a problem for them.  
> Hence this multi-platform kernel effort.  Otherwise why would we bother?
> 
> According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
> updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
> would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
> have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?
> 
> Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.

Well they ship x86 CPU firmware updates according to the boot log on one
of my systems at least...

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 02/21/2013 03:05 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
...
>> Distros already ship huge kernels with modules for every hardware out
>> there. Shipping all the DTs as well doesn't seem like a problem.
> 
> But it is!  Even shipping multiple kernels _is_ a problem for them.  
> Hence this multi-platform kernel effort.  Otherwise why would we bother?
> 
> According to your logic, distros could package and distribute BIOS 
> updates for all the X86 systems out there.  After all, if they did, they 
> would guarantee even better support on the hardware they target and not 
> have to carry those ACPI quirks in the kernel, no?
> 
> Ask them if they find this idea rejoicing.  You might be surprised.

Well they ship x86 CPU firmware updates according to the boot log on one
of my systems at least...

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:45:37PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Well they ship x86 CPU firmware updates according to the boot log on one
> of my systems at least...

Correction: CPU microcode updates.  That's updating the microcode in the
CPU which runs the x86 instruction set.  It's done to fix problems
discovered with execution of the CPU instruction set.

That's entirely separate from ACPI or DT blobs provided by the OEM.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:45:37PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Well they ship x86 CPU firmware updates according to the boot log on one
> of my systems at least...

Correction: CPU microcode updates.  That's updating the microcode in the
CPU which runs the x86 instruction set.  It's done to fix problems
discovered with execution of the CPU instruction set.

That's entirely separate from ACPI or DT blobs provided by the OEM.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:45:37PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Well they ship x86 CPU firmware updates according to the boot log on one
> of my systems at least...

Correction: CPU microcode updates.  That's updating the microcode in the
CPU which runs the x86 instruction set.  It's done to fix problems
discovered with execution of the CPU instruction set.

That's entirely separate from ACPI or DT blobs provided by the OEM.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> writes:

Hi,

 Jason> We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
 Jason> on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
 Jason> file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
 Jason> with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
 Jason> depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
 Jason> mainlined and when, etc.

 Jason> Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
 Jason> embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
 Jason> thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
 Jason> initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

 Jason> Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
 Jason> deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
 Jason> because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
 Jason> to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
 Jason> or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
 Jason> it.

I'm having the exact same experience (and handle it in the same way).

I know this was not the intention of DT, but unfortunately this is how
things have turned out so far.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> writes:

Hi,

 Jason> We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
 Jason> on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
 Jason> file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
 Jason> with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
 Jason> depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
 Jason> mainlined and when, etc.

 Jason> Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
 Jason> embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
 Jason> thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
 Jason> initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

 Jason> Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
 Jason> deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
 Jason> because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
 Jason> to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
 Jason> or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
 Jason> it.

I'm having the exact same experience (and handle it in the same way).

I know this was not the intention of DT, but unfortunately this is how
things have turned out so far.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> writes:

Hi,

 Jason> We've been using DT on production embedded stuff sice about 2.6.20ish
 Jason> on PPC and now ARM. We treat the dtb as a kernel version specific
 Jason> file, much like an initrd and ensure that the kernel only ever boots
 Jason> with its proper dtb. This is based on experience that the dtbs change
 Jason> depending on the state of the drivers in the kernel, what gets
 Jason> mainlined and when, etc.

 Jason> Embedding this stuff into the bootloader is *not* desirable for my
 Jason> embedded scenarios. We don't use FIT (or uboot) but we do the same
 Jason> thing: a single image is constructed with the proper dtb, kernel and
 Jason> initrd, and that is what the bootloader boots.

 Jason> Why? This is an embedded appliance product. We need to be able to
 Jason> deliver firmware upgrades that *work*. We can't brick the board
 Jason> because the bootloader and kernel get out of sync. The boot loader has
 Jason> to be *simple*, it has to boot every past, present and future kernel
 Jason> or we start taking risks that a firmware flash will end up bricking
 Jason> it.

I'm having the exact same experience (and handle it in the same way).

I know this was not the intention of DT, but unfortunately this is how
things have turned out so far.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Russell,

In message <20130221134656.GC17852@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> you wrote:
>
> > Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
> > 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
> > kernel uses.
> 
> So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in it so
> far.  That speaks volumes...

Well, your attitude to (not) accept anything like that is well known;
there have been few previews attempts, which have all been rejected in
basicly the same way.

But now the situation has changed - multiplatform support adds a
number of use cases where this feature comes in handy, so it pops up
again.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
The aim of science is not to open the door to everlasting wisdom  but
to set a limit on everlasting error.                 - Bertolt Brecht

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Russell,

In message <20130221134656.GC17852@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> you wrote:
>
> > Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
> > 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
> > kernel uses.
> 
> So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in it so
> far.  That speaks volumes...

Well, your attitude to (not) accept anything like that is well known;
there have been few previews attempts, which have all been rejected in
basicly the same way.

But now the situation has changed - multiplatform support adds a
number of use cases where this feature comes in handy, so it pops up
again.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The aim of science is not to open the door to everlasting wisdom  but
to set a limit on everlasting error.                 - Bertolt Brecht

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Russell,

In message <20130221134656.GC17852@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> you wrote:
>
> > Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
> > 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
> > kernel uses.
> 
> So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in it so
> far.  That speaks volumes...

Well, your attitude to (not) accept anything like that is well known;
there have been few previews attempts, which have all been rejected in
basicly the same way.

But now the situation has changed - multiplatform support adds a
number of use cases where this feature comes in handy, so it pops up
again.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The aim of science is not to open the door to everlasting wisdom  but
to set a limit on everlasting error.                 - Bertolt Brecht

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

[uboot list deleted again]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:37:07PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Russell,
> 
> In message <20130221134656.GC17852@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> you wrote:
> >
> > > Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
> > > 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
> > > kernel uses.
> > 
> > So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in it so
> > far.  That speaks volumes...
> 
> Well, your attitude to (not) accept anything like that is well known;
> there have been few previews attempts, which have all been rejected in
> basicly the same way.

_My_ attitude?

I'll point out something fundamental here: _our_ kernels native format
has not changed over the last 15+ years, and continues to work everywhere
where uboot is not involved, and continues to work where uboot is
involved provided its wrapped up in silly uboot formats.

That means we designed it right back in the early days.  The fact that
uboot has to reinvent the wheel shows that there were wrong design
decisions made that did not cater for the situations that people
encountered in the future.

Now, as for "have all been rejected in basic_al_ly the same way" that's
not true.  What you'll notice is that there's been discussions over the
years about FIT, which never went anywhere for various reasons (some of
them I was not involved with.)  And during those discussions, uboot's
continued refusal to use the native zImage format ended up getting
fixed by those who raised (and continue to raise) concerns about uboots
fixation with its file formats and the built-in restrictions of them.

> But now the situation has changed - multiplatform support adds a
> number of use cases where this feature comes in handy, so it pops up
> again.

No, the situation hasn't changed.  We're still talking about booting
a kernel image in several platforms.  That's been the situation since
the 1990s.

And boot loaders from the 1990s and early 2000s have been able to do
this _long_ before uboot.

What's changed is the number of platforms, and the apparant acceptance
of uboot as "the official boot loader" because it's seen as having its
own format integrated into the kernel itself.

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

[uboot list deleted again]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:37:07PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Russell,
> 
> In message <20130221134656.GC17852@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> you wrote:
> >
> > > Note that FIT images are relatively old (docs date back to March
> > > 2008).  This is more of another effort to try and update what the
> > > kernel uses.
> > 
> > So it's five years old and people haven't been that interested in it so
> > far.  That speaks volumes...
> 
> Well, your attitude to (not) accept anything like that is well known;
> there have been few previews attempts, which have all been rejected in
> basicly the same way.

_My_ attitude?

I'll point out something fundamental here: _our_ kernels native format
has not changed over the last 15+ years, and continues to work everywhere
where uboot is not involved, and continues to work where uboot is
involved provided its wrapped up in silly uboot formats.

That means we designed it right back in the early days.  The fact that
uboot has to reinvent the wheel shows that there were wrong design
decisions made that did not cater for the situations that people
encountered in the future.

Now, as for "have all been rejected in basic_al_ly the same way" that's
not true.  What you'll notice is that there's been discussions over the
years about FIT, which never went anywhere for various reasons (some of
them I was not involved with.)  And during those discussions, uboot's
continued refusal to use the native zImage format ended up getting
fixed by those who raised (and continue to raise) concerns about uboots
fixation with its file formats and the built-in restrictions of them.

> But now the situation has changed - multiplatform support adds a
> number of use cases where this feature comes in handy, so it pops up
> again.

No, the situation hasn't changed.  We're still talking about booting
a kernel image in several platforms.  That's been the situation since
the 1990s.

And boot loaders from the 1990s and early 2000s have been able to do
this _long_ before uboot.

What's changed is the number of platforms, and the apparant acceptance
of uboot as "the official boot loader" because it's seen as having its
own format integrated into the kernel itself.

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Joel A Fernandes]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>> in the kernel.
>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>
> I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the kernel
> just for the hell of uboot.
>
> And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay there.  The
> longer term plan is for them to end up in an external git tree, entirely
> separate from the kernel source.  So anything that ties them with the
> kernel build process will ultimately have to be removed again.

Sorry for hopping in late as I have been travelling.

Guess much has been said, but for courtesy sake till dts/u-boot build
support is dropped, would you consider accepting a simple extension to
mkuboot.sh with minimal Kbuild changes? I can promise there will be
quite a few users.

Lots of folks want embedded device trees and there are already out of
tree hacks floating as you know that do this. FIT approach to this is
more cleaner I feel.

Let me know what you can do.

Thanks,
Joel

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Joel A Fernandes]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>> in the kernel.
>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>
> I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the kernel
> just for the hell of uboot.
>
> And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay there.  The
> longer term plan is for them to end up in an external git tree, entirely
> separate from the kernel source.  So anything that ties them with the
> kernel build process will ultimately have to be removed again.

Sorry for hopping in late as I have been travelling.

Guess much has been said, but for courtesy sake till dts/u-boot build
support is dropped, would you consider accepting a simple extension to
mkuboot.sh with minimal Kbuild changes? I can promise there will be
quite a few users.

Lots of folks want embedded device trees and there are already out of
tree hacks floating as you know that do this. FIT approach to this is
more cleaner I feel.

Let me know what you can do.

Thanks,
Joel

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Joel A Fernandes]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I've been spinning some work-in-progress patches for FIT build support
>> in the kernel.
>> With the move to multiplatform support on OMAP, I feel it is a good
>> time to add  FIT support, also looking at the proliferating number of
>> dtbs, as it is a nice way
>
> I'm not looking to add yet another crappy uboot image format to the kernel
> just for the hell of uboot.
>
> And don't think that the dtbs in the kernel are going to stay there.  The
> longer term plan is for them to end up in an external git tree, entirely
> separate from the kernel source.  So anything that ties them with the
> kernel build process will ultimately have to be removed again.

Sorry for hopping in late as I have been travelling.

Guess much has been said, but for courtesy sake till dts/u-boot build
support is dropped, would you consider accepting a simple extension to
mkuboot.sh with minimal Kbuild changes? I can promise there will be
quite a few users.

Lots of folks want embedded device trees and there are already out of
tree hacks floating as you know that do this. FIT approach to this is
more cleaner I feel.

Let me know what you can do.

Thanks,
Joel

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> mkuboot.sh?

I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
it:

Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.

Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.


-Olof

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> mkuboot.sh?

I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
it:

Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.

Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.


-Olof

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> mkuboot.sh?

I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
it:

Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.

Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.


-Olof

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Pavel Machek]

On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > mkuboot.sh?
> 
> I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> it:
> 
> Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> 
> Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.

Not sure I agree here:

1) zImage was designed to boot from floppy, without any kind of
bootloader on i386

2) There are no distributions on many embedded systems. And no good
place where to store the scripts.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Pavel Machek]

On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > mkuboot.sh?
> 
> I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> it:
> 
> Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> 
> Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.

Not sure I agree here:

1) zImage was designed to boot from floppy, without any kind of
bootloader on i386

2) There are no distributions on many embedded systems. And no good
place where to store the scripts.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Pavel Machek]

On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > mkuboot.sh?
> 
> I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> it:
> 
> Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> 
> Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.

Not sure I agree here:

1) zImage was designed to boot from floppy, without any kind of
bootloader on i386

2) There are no distributions on many embedded systems. And no good
place where to store the scripts.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > > mkuboot.sh?
> > 
> > I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> > it:
> > 
> > Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> > reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> > Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> > bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> > 
> > Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> > That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.
> 
> Not sure I agree here:
> 
> 1) zImage was designed to boot from floppy, without any kind of
> bootloader on i386

zImage on x86 != zImage on ARM.

They only share the fact that they're both compressed and self-extracting.

ARM has never supported any kind of floppy based boot - mainly because
floppies have never been "executable" like they are on x86; all that
previous boot loaders ever did was load the kernel into RAM using some
method and call address 0, with a data structure (formerly struct
params, later atags) at a fixed address, later passing that address to
the kernel.

The best floppies got was being able to run a script or load an executable
off the floppy under the ROM'd OS, and our zImage itself doesn't fit the
format required for that.

Our zImage has always been just a pure straight binary compressed kernel
format.  Nothing more.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > > mkuboot.sh?
> > 
> > I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> > it:
> > 
> > Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> > reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> > Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> > bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> > 
> > Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> > That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.
> 
> Not sure I agree here:
> 
> 1) zImage was designed to boot from floppy, without any kind of
> bootloader on i386

zImage on x86 != zImage on ARM.

They only share the fact that they're both compressed and self-extracting.

ARM has never supported any kind of floppy based boot - mainly because
floppies have never been "executable" like they are on x86; all that
previous boot loaders ever did was load the kernel into RAM using some
method and call address 0, with a data structure (formerly struct
params, later atags) at a fixed address, later passing that address to
the kernel.

The best floppies got was being able to run a script or load an executable
off the floppy under the ROM'd OS, and our zImage itself doesn't fit the
format required for that.

Our zImage has always been just a pure straight binary compressed kernel
format.  Nothing more.

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > > mkuboot.sh?
> > 
> > I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> > it:
> > 
> > Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> > reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> > Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> > bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> > 
> > Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> > That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.
> 
> Not sure I agree here:
> 
> 1) zImage was designed to boot from floppy, without any kind of
> bootloader on i386

zImage on x86 != zImage on ARM.

They only share the fact that they're both compressed and self-extracting.

ARM has never supported any kind of floppy based boot - mainly because
floppies have never been "executable" like they are on x86; all that
previous boot loaders ever did was load the kernel into RAM using some
method and call address 0, with a data structure (formerly struct
params, later atags) at a fixed address, later passing that address to
the kernel.

The best floppies got was being able to run a script or load an executable
off the floppy under the ROM'd OS, and our zImage itself doesn't fit the
format required for that.

Our zImage has always been just a pure straight binary compressed kernel
format.  Nothing more.

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2013-03-18 16:44:26, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > > > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > > > mkuboot.sh?
> > > 
> > > I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> > > it:
> > > 
> > > Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> > > reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> > > Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> > > bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> > > 
> > > Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> > > That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.
> > 
> > Not sure I agree here:
> > 
> > 1) zImage was designed to boot from floppy, without any kind of
> > bootloader on i386
> 
> zImage on x86 != zImage on ARM.
> 
> They only share the fact that they're both compressed and self-extracting.
> 
> ARM has never supported any kind of floppy based boot - mainly because
> floppies have never been "executable" like they are on x86; all that
> previous boot loaders ever did was load the kernel into RAM using
> some

Yes, I know. That's why I said "on i386". 

What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2013-03-18 16:44:26, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > > > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > > > mkuboot.sh?
> > > 
> > > I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> > > it:
> > > 
> > > Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> > > reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> > > Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> > > bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> > > 
> > > Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> > > That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.
> > 
> > Not sure I agree here:
> > 
> > 1) zImage was designed to boot from floppy, without any kind of
> > bootloader on i386
> 
> zImage on x86 != zImage on ARM.
> 
> They only share the fact that they're both compressed and self-extracting.
> 
> ARM has never supported any kind of floppy based boot - mainly because
> floppies have never been "executable" like they are on x86; all that
> previous boot loaders ever did was load the kernel into RAM using
> some

Yes, I know. That's why I said "on i386". 

What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2013-03-18 16:44:26, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > > > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > > > mkuboot.sh?
> > > 
> > > I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> > > it:
> > > 
> > > Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> > > reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> > > Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> > > bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> > > 
> > > Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> > > That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.
> > 
> > Not sure I agree here:
> > 
> > 1) zImage was designed to boot from floppy, without any kind of
> > bootloader on i386
> 
> zImage on x86 != zImage on ARM.
> 
> They only share the fact that they're both compressed and self-extracting.
> 
> ARM has never supported any kind of floppy based boot - mainly because
> floppies have never been "executable" like they are on x86; all that
> previous boot loaders ever did was load the kernel into RAM using
> some

Yes, I know. That's why I said "on i386". 

What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
> something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
> make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.

Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.

uImage isn't going anywhere for the time being, but you will find
that:

a) recent kernels will just wrap the zImage without a DTB, so
   appended DTBs can't be used with it
b) it won't work with MULTIPLATFORM-enabled kernels, unless you
   provide make with a LOADADDR= argument to tell it where the
   uImage is to be loaded - which is platform specific.

(b) fundamentally can't be solved in kbuild.  If you want to use
uImage with multiple platforms from the same zImage, then you need
to generate multiple uImage files with different load addresses.
That's purely - and solely - down to the dysfunctional uImage format.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
> something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
> make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.

Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.

uImage isn't going anywhere for the time being, but you will find
that:

a) recent kernels will just wrap the zImage without a DTB, so
   appended DTBs can't be used with it
b) it won't work with MULTIPLATFORM-enabled kernels, unless you
   provide make with a LOADADDR= argument to tell it where the
   uImage is to be loaded - which is platform specific.

(b) fundamentally can't be solved in kbuild.  If you want to use
uImage with multiple platforms from the same zImage, then you need
to generate multiple uImage files with different load addresses.
That's purely - and solely - down to the dysfunctional uImage format.

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
> something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
> make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.

Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.

uImage isn't going anywhere for the time being, but you will find
that:

a) recent kernels will just wrap the zImage without a DTB, so
   appended DTBs can't be used with it
b) it won't work with MULTIPLATFORM-enabled kernels, unless you
   provide make with a LOADADDR= argument to tell it where the
   uImage is to be loaded - which is platform specific.

(b) fundamentally can't be solved in kbuild.  If you want to use
uImage with multiple platforms from the same zImage, then you need
to generate multiple uImage files with different load addresses.
That's purely - and solely - down to the dysfunctional uImage format.

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2013-03-18 17:57:46, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
> > something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
> > make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.
> 
> Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
> the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
> having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.
> 
> uImage isn't going anywhere for the time being, but you will find
> that:
> 
> a) recent kernels will just wrap the zImage without a DTB, so
>    appended DTBs can't be used with it
> b) it won't work with MULTIPLATFORM-enabled kernels, unless you
>    provide make with a LOADADDR= argument to tell it where the
>    uImage is to be loaded - which is platform specific.
> 
> (b) fundamentally can't be solved in kbuild.  If you want to use
> uImage with multiple platforms from the same zImage, then you need
> to generate multiple uImage files with different load addresses.
> That's purely - and solely - down to the dysfunctional uImage format.

I know. uImage is not perfect. But solution should be "adopt a better
format" (ARM FIT?), not "drop support for making useful images
altogether" as Olof proposed before.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2013-03-18 17:57:46, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
> > something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
> > make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.
> 
> Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
> the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
> having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.
> 
> uImage isn't going anywhere for the time being, but you will find
> that:
> 
> a) recent kernels will just wrap the zImage without a DTB, so
>    appended DTBs can't be used with it
> b) it won't work with MULTIPLATFORM-enabled kernels, unless you
>    provide make with a LOADADDR= argument to tell it where the
>    uImage is to be loaded - which is platform specific.
> 
> (b) fundamentally can't be solved in kbuild.  If you want to use
> uImage with multiple platforms from the same zImage, then you need
> to generate multiple uImage files with different load addresses.
> That's purely - and solely - down to the dysfunctional uImage format.

I know. uImage is not perfect. But solution should be "adopt a better
format" (ARM FIT?), not "drop support for making useful images
altogether" as Olof proposed before.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Pavel Machek]

On Mon 2013-03-18 17:57:46, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
> > something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
> > make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.
> 
> Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
> the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
> having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.
> 
> uImage isn't going anywhere for the time being, but you will find
> that:
> 
> a) recent kernels will just wrap the zImage without a DTB, so
>    appended DTBs can't be used with it
> b) it won't work with MULTIPLATFORM-enabled kernels, unless you
>    provide make with a LOADADDR= argument to tell it where the
>    uImage is to be loaded - which is platform specific.
> 
> (b) fundamentally can't be solved in kbuild.  If you want to use
> uImage with multiple platforms from the same zImage, then you need
> to generate multiple uImage files with different load addresses.
> That's purely - and solely - down to the dysfunctional uImage format.

I know. uImage is not perfect. But solution should be "adopt a better
format" (ARM FIT?), not "drop support for making useful images
altogether" as Olof proposed before.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 03/18/2013 12:04 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2013-03-18 17:57:46, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
>>> something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
>>> make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
>> the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
>> having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.
>>
>> uImage isn't going anywhere for the time being, but you will find
>> that:
>>
>> a) recent kernels will just wrap the zImage without a DTB, so
>>    appended DTBs can't be used with it
>> b) it won't work with MULTIPLATFORM-enabled kernels, unless you
>>    provide make with a LOADADDR= argument to tell it where the
>>    uImage is to be loaded - which is platform specific.
>>
>> (b) fundamentally can't be solved in kbuild.  If you want to use
>> uImage with multiple platforms from the same zImage, then you need
>> to generate multiple uImage files with different load addresses.
>> That's purely - and solely - down to the dysfunctional uImage format.
> 
> I know. uImage is not perfect. But solution should be "adopt a better
> format" (ARM FIT?), not "drop support for making useful images
> altogether" as Olof proposed before.

Raw zImage /is/ the useful format that should be adopted.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 03/18/2013 12:04 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2013-03-18 17:57:46, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
>>> something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
>>> make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
>> the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
>> having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.
>>
>> uImage isn't going anywhere for the time being, but you will find
>> that:
>>
>> a) recent kernels will just wrap the zImage without a DTB, so
>>    appended DTBs can't be used with it
>> b) it won't work with MULTIPLATFORM-enabled kernels, unless you
>>    provide make with a LOADADDR= argument to tell it where the
>>    uImage is to be loaded - which is platform specific.
>>
>> (b) fundamentally can't be solved in kbuild.  If you want to use
>> uImage with multiple platforms from the same zImage, then you need
>> to generate multiple uImage files with different load addresses.
>> That's purely - and solely - down to the dysfunctional uImage format.
> 
> I know. uImage is not perfect. But solution should be "adopt a better
> format" (ARM FIT?), not "drop support for making useful images
> altogether" as Olof proposed before.

Raw zImage /is/ the useful format that should be adopted.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Stephen Warren]

On 03/18/2013 12:04 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2013-03-18 17:57:46, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> What I wanted to say is that kernel build traditionaly produced
>>> something useful, something bootloader can actually boot. Currently,
>>> make uImage produces u-boot image. Please keep that capability.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
>> the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
>> having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.
>>
>> uImage isn't going anywhere for the time being, but you will find
>> that:
>>
>> a) recent kernels will just wrap the zImage without a DTB, so
>>    appended DTBs can't be used with it
>> b) it won't work with MULTIPLATFORM-enabled kernels, unless you
>>    provide make with a LOADADDR= argument to tell it where the
>>    uImage is to be loaded - which is platform specific.
>>
>> (b) fundamentally can't be solved in kbuild.  If you want to use
>> uImage with multiple platforms from the same zImage, then you need
>> to generate multiple uImage files with different load addresses.
>> That's purely - and solely - down to the dysfunctional uImage format.
> 
> I know. uImage is not perfect. But solution should be "adopt a better
> format" (ARM FIT?), not "drop support for making useful images
> altogether" as Olof proposed before.

Raw zImage /is/ the useful format that should be adopted.

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Stephen,

In message <51475997.2060008@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> Raw zImage /is/ the useful format that should be adopted.

This "one size fits all" approch does fit everywhere.  There are a
number of users (including _big_ commercial ones, with _large_ numebrs
of systems in the field) that have simple requirements like:

- how can I find out if the image I just loaded to RAM in OK (OK
  maning some checksum is correct, or some crypto-key could be
  verified, or ...) ?

- how can I find out which version of image is installed on this
  device in the flash?  Can I print something like an ID string, or a
  build timestamp, etc?

etc. etc.

zImage may work well in many cases, but there are also many cases
where in image format that allows for additional meta-data is
mandatory.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Stephen,

In message <51475997.2060008@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> Raw zImage /is/ the useful format that should be adopted.

This "one size fits all" approch does fit everywhere.  There are a
number of users (including _big_ commercial ones, with _large_ numebrs
of systems in the field) that have simple requirements like:

- how can I find out if the image I just loaded to RAM in OK (OK
  maning some checksum is correct, or some crypto-key could be
  verified, or ...) ?

- how can I find out which version of image is installed on this
  device in the flash?  Can I print something like an ID string, or a
  build timestamp, etc?

etc. etc.

zImage may work well in many cases, but there are also many cases
where in image format that allows for additional meta-data is
mandatory.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open.

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Stephen,

In message <51475997.2060008@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> Raw zImage /is/ the useful format that should be adopted.

This "one size fits all" approch does fit everywhere.  There are a
number of users (including _big_ commercial ones, with _large_ numebrs
of systems in the field) that have simple requirements like:

- how can I find out if the image I just loaded to RAM in OK (OK
  maning some checksum is correct, or some crypto-key could be
  verified, or ...) ?

- how can I find out which version of image is installed on this
  device in the flash?  Can I print something like an ID string, or a
  build timestamp, etc?

etc. etc.

zImage may work well in many cases, but there are also many cases
where in image format that allows for additional meta-data is
mandatory.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open.

Re: [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Russell,

In message <20130318175746.GJ30923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> you wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
> the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
> having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.

I'm not sure if you are aware that U-Boot supports uImages that can be
run from _any_ load address (using the IH_TYPE_KERNEL_NOLOAD image
type).  If anybody was willing to keep uImage support in the kernel
this would probably be a convenient way to go.

But in any case, the uImage format is deprecated.  Support for FIT
images was added more than five years ago, and new developments should
rather focus on supporting these.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Russell,

In message <20130318175746.GJ30923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> you wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
> the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
> having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.

I'm not sure if you are aware that U-Boot supports uImages that can be
run from _any_ load address (using the IH_TYPE_KERNEL_NOLOAD image
type).  If anybody was willing to keep uImage support in the kernel
this would probably be a convenient way to go.

But in any case, the uImage format is deprecated.  Support for FIT
images was added more than five years ago, and new developments should
rather focus on supporting these.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de

[RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Russell,

In message <20130318175746.GJ30923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> you wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with uImage.  It encodes
> the load address, and that is utterly incompatible with the goal of
> having a kernel image which boots on multiple platforms.

I'm not sure if you are aware that U-Boot supports uImages that can be
run from _any_ load address (using the IH_TYPE_KERNEL_NOLOAD image
type).  If anybody was willing to keep uImage support in the kernel
this would probably be a convenient way to go.

But in any case, the uImage format is deprecated.  Support for FIT
images was added more than five years ago, and new developments should
rather focus on supporting these.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1611 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > > mkuboot.sh?
> > 
> > I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> > it:
> > 
> > Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> > reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> > Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> > bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> > 
> > Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> > That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.
> 
> Not sure I agree here:

Lets try and stop this again here.  I think perhaps the KVM tool example
is instructive here.  For the various reasons that close association
with the kernel can be helpful for things (the exposure and ease of
being found), it would be nice if the tooling to expand single kernel
image into single "bootable" image was with the kernel.  But it's not a
requirement.  And it's not even necessarily the best for the tooling
either.  So, lets drop the idea of getting this into the kernel and if
people really do wish to extend FIT such that we can easily spit out a
FIT image that works on omap* and tegra* or what have you, and add a FIT
parser to GRUB, great, get to work.  No need to be tied to the kernel
for this.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > > mkuboot.sh?
> > 
> > I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> > it:
> > 
> > Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> > reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> > Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> > bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> > 
> > Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> > That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.
> 
> Not sure I agree here:

Lets try and stop this again here.  I think perhaps the KVM tool example
is instructive here.  For the various reasons that close association
with the kernel can be helpful for things (the exposure and ease of
being found), it would be nice if the tooling to expand single kernel
image into single "bootable" image was with the kernel.  But it's not a
requirement.  And it's not even necessarily the best for the tooling
either.  So, lets drop the idea of getting this into the kernel and if
people really do wish to extend FIT such that we can easily spit out a
FIT image that works on omap* and tegra* or what have you, and add a FIT
parser to GRUB, great, get to work.  No need to be tied to the kernel
for this.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20130318/894ff183/attachment.pgp>

[U-Boot] [RFC] Kbuild support for ARM FIT images

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 05:36:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2013-02-22 08:00:44, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:37:10PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> > > Any comments on this approach? Is it better to merge mkfitsrc.sh with
> > > mkuboot.sh?
> > 
> > I know this was discussed quite extensively yesterday, but here is my take on
> > it:
> > 
> > Given the recent complications from multiplatform, we really saw a strong
> > reason to _not_ do the final boot wrapping in the kernel build system.
> > Produce the zImage and the DTB files, and have a surrounding script that
> > bundles the two in a format that your particular device needs.
> > 
> > Most distros have scripts to handle the "make install" step of a kernel build.
> > That's where this belongs, not in the actual build step.
> 
> Not sure I agree here:

Lets try and stop this again here.  I think perhaps the KVM tool example
is instructive here.  For the various reasons that close association
with the kernel can be helpful for things (the exposure and ease of
being found), it would be nice if the tooling to expand single kernel
image into single "bootable" image was with the kernel.  But it's not a
requirement.  And it's not even necessarily the best for the tooling
either.  So, lets drop the idea of getting this into the kernel and if
people really do wish to extend FIT such that we can easily spit out a
FIT image that works on omap* and tegra* or what have you, and add a FIT
parser to GRUB, great, get to work.  No need to be tied to the kernel
for this.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130318/894ff183/attachment-0001.sig>