* Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage
2021-08-28 16:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage Simon Glass
@ 2021-08-30 12:46 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-08-30 14:30 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2021-08-30 14:53 ` Marcel Ziswiler
2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Ilias Apalodimas @ 2021-08-30 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Glass
Cc: U-Boot Mailing List, Heinrich Schuchardt, Mark Kettenis,
Tom Rini, Sean Anderson, Bin Meng, François Ozog,
Bill Mills
Hi Simon,
+cc a few Linaro folks who have been looking at similar problems.
On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 at 19:46, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> At present some of the ideas and techniques behind devicetree in U-Boot
> are assumed, implied or unsaid. Add some documentation to cover how
> devicetree is build, how it can be modified and the rules about using
> the various CONFIG_OF_... options.
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Fix typos per Sean (thank you!) and a few others
> - Add a 'Use of U-Boot /config node' section
> - Drop mention of dm-verity since that actually uses the kernel cmdline
> - Explain that OF_BOARD will still work after these changes (in
> 'Once this bug is fixed...' paragraph)
> - Expand a bit on the reason why the 'Current situation' is bad
> - Clarify in a second place that Linux and U-Boot use the same devicetree
> in 'To be clear, while U-Boot...'
> - Expand on why we should have rules for other projects in
> 'Devicetree in another project'
> - Add a comment as to why devicetree in U-Boot is not 'bad design'
> - Reword 'in-tree U-Boot devicetree' to 'devicetree source in U-Boot'
> - Rewrite 'Devicetree generated on-the-fly in another project' to cover
> points raised on v1
> - Add 'Why does U-Boot have its nodes and properties?'
> - Add 'Why not have two devicetrees?'
>
> doc/develop/index.rst | 1 +
> doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst | 563 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> doc/develop/package/index.rst | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 565 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
>
> diff --git a/doc/develop/index.rst b/doc/develop/index.rst
> index 83c929babda..d5ad8f9fe53 100644
> --- a/doc/develop/index.rst
> +++ b/doc/develop/index.rst
> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ Packaging
> :maxdepth: 1
>
> package/index
> + package/devicetree
>
> Testing
> -------
> diff --git a/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..d922d3f87ae
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> +
> +Updating the devicetree
> +=======================
> +
> +U-Boot uses devicetree for runtime configuration and storing required blobs or
> +any other information it needs to operate. It is possible to update the
> +devicetree separately from actually building U-Boot. This provides a good degree
> +of control and flexibility for firmware that uses U-Boot in conjunction with
> +other project.
> +
> +There are many reasons why it is useful to modify the devicetree after building
> +it:
> +
> +- Configuration can be changed, e.g. which UART to use
> +- A serial number can be added
> +- Public keys can be added to allow image verification
> +- Console output can be changed (e.g. to select serial or vidconsole)
> +
> +This section describes how to work with devicetree to accomplish your goals.
> +
> +See also :doc:`../devicetree/control` for a basic summary of the available
> +features.
> +
> +
> +Devicetree source
> +-----------------
> +
> +Every board in U-Boot must include a devicetree sufficient to build and boot
> +that board on suitable hardware (or emulation). This is specified using the
> +`CONFIG DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` option.
> +
> +
> +Current situation (August 2021)
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +As an aside, at present U-Boot allows `CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` to be empty,
> +e.g. if `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` or `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` are used. This has
> +unfortunately created an enormous amount of confusion and some wasted effort.
> +This was not intended and this bug will be fixed soon.
> +
> +Some of the problems created are:
> +
> +- It is not obvious that the devicetree is coming from another project
> +
> +- There is no way to see even a sample devicetree for these platform in U-Boot,
> + so it is hard to know what is going on, e.g. which devices are typically
> + present
> +
> +- The other project may not provide a way to support U-Boot's requirements for
> + devicetree, such as the /config node. Note: On the U-Boot mailing linst, this
> + was only discovered after weeks of discussion and confusion
s/linst/list.
> +
> +- For QEMU specifically, consulting two QEMU source files is required, for which
> + there are no references in U-Boot documentation. The code is generating a
> + devicetree, but it is not clear what controls affect this generation.
QEMU command line args mostly.
> +
> +Specifically on the changes in U-Boot:
> +
> +- `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` was added in rpi_patch_ for Raspberry Pi, which does have
> + an in-tree devicetree, but this feature has since been used for boards that
> + don't
> +- `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` was added in bcm_patch_ as part of a larger Broadcom
> + change with a tag indicating it only affected one board, so the change in
> + behaviour was not noticed at the time. It has since been used by RISC-V qemu
> + boards.
> +
I don't see why we need 2 config options tbh. Some of the existing
boards use CONFIG_OF_BOARD and have a built in function that reads a
specific memory address (eg. board/xilinx/common/board.c).
This fells like the exact same functionality named differently. It
basically means "someone else will provide the DTB". Any chance we can
get rid of one of them ?
> +Once this bug is fixed, CONFIG_OF_BOARD and CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE will override
> +(at runtime) the devicetree suppled with U-Boot, but will otherwise use
s/suppled/supplied
> +CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE for the in-tree build. So these two will become options,
> +moving out of the 'choice' in `dts/Kconfig`.
This isn't very clear, at least for me. You are essentially saying
U-Boot will be provided with 2 devices trees? Aren't those board
suscptible to the problems you mentions in the "Two device trees
chapter"?
> +
> +This means that there is a basic devicetree build in the U-Boot tree, for
> +build-testing, consistency and documentation purposes, but at runtime U-Boot can
> +accept its devicetree from another source.
> +
> +To be clear, while U-Boot has its own copy of the devicetree source for each
> +board, this must match the Linux source, perhaps with some u-boot.dtsi
> +additions. The intent here is not to create a separate binding, just to provide
> +a representative devicetree in U-Boot.
> +
> +Offending boards are:
> +
> +- bcm7260
> +- bcm7445
> +- qemu_arm64
> +- qemu_arm
> +- qemu-ppce500
> +- qemu-riscv32
> +- qemu-riscv32_smode
> +- qemu-riscv64
> +- qemu-riscv64_smode
> +
> +All of these need to have a devicetree added in-tree. This is targeted to be
> +fixed in the 2022.01 release.
> +
> +
> +Building the devicetree
> +-----------------------
> +
> +U-Boot automatically builds the devicetree for a board, from the
> +`arch/<arch>/dts` directory. The Makefile in those directories has rules for
> +building devicetree files. It is preferable to avoid target-specific rules in
> +those files: i.e. all boards for a particular SoC should be built at once,
> +where practical. Apart from simplifying the Makefile, this helps to efficiently
> +(and immediately) ensure that changes in one board's DT do not break others that
> +are related. Building devicetrees is fast, so performance is seldom a concern
> +here.
> +
> +
> +Overriding the default devicetree
> +---------------------------------
> +
> +When building U-Boot, the `DEVICE_TREE` environment variable allows the
> +default devicetree file to be overridden at build time. This can be useful if
> +modifications have to be made to the in-tree devicetree file, for the benefit
> +of a downstream build system. Note that the in-tree devicetree must be
> +sufficient to build and boot, so this is not a way to bypass that requirement.
> +
> +
> +Modifying the devicetree after building
> +---------------------------------------
> +
> +While it is generally painful and hacky to modify the code or rodata of a
> +program after it is built, in many cases it is useful to do so, e.g. to add
> +configuration information like serial numbers, enabling/disabling features, etc.
> +
> +Devicetree provides a very nice solution to these problems since it is
> +structured data and it is relatively easy to change it, even in binary form
> +(see fdtput).
> +
> +U-Boot takes care that the devicetree is easily accessible after the build
> +process. In fact it is placed in a separate file called `u-boot.dtb`. If the
> +build system wants to modify or replace that file, it can do so. Then all that
> +is needed is to run `binman update` to update the file inside the image. If
> +binman is not used, then `u-boot-nodtb.bin` and the new `u-boot.dtb` can simply
> +be concatenated to achieve the desired result. U-Boot happily copes with the
> +devicetree growing or shrinking.
> +
> +The `u-boot.bin` image contains both pieces. While it is possible to locate the
> +devicetree within the image using the signature at the start of the file, this
> +is a bit messy.
> +
> +This is why `CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE` should always be used when building U-Boot.
> +The `CONFIG_OF_EMBED` option embeds the devicetree somewhere in the U-Boot ELF
> +image as rodata, meaning that it is hard to find it and it cannot increase in
> +size.
> +
> +When modifying the devicetree, the different cases to consider are as follows:
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE
> + This is easy, described above. Just change, replace or rebuild the
> + devicetree so it suits your needs, then rerun binman or redo the `cat`
> + operation to join `u-boot-nodtb.bin` and the new `u-boot.dtb`
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_EMBED
> + This is tricky, since the devicetree cannot easily be located. If the EFL
> + file is available, then the _dtb_dt_begin and __dtb_dt_end symbols can be
> + examined to find it. While it is possible to contract the file, it is not
> + possible to expand the file since that would involve re-linking
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE
> + In this case the devicetree must be modified in the project which provides
> + it, as described below
Personally I don't like this at all. If the aforementioned changes
were part of the DT spec, that would make sense. Teaching
OenSBI/TF-A/whatever U-Boot internals, makes no sense to me. U-Boot
invented those bindings for it's own sake, so imho they should remain
there.
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_BOARD
> + This is a board-specific situation, so needs to be considered on a
> + case-by-case base. The devicetree must be modified so that the correct
> + one is provided to U-Boot. How this is done depends entirely on the
> + implementation of this option for the board. It might require injecting the
> + changes into a different project somehow using tooling available there, or
> + it might involve merging an overlay file at runtime to obtain the desired
> + result.
> +
> +
> +Use of U-Boot /config node
> +--------------------------
> +
> +A common problem with firmware is that many builds are needed to deal with the
> +slight variations between different, related models. For example, one model may
> +have a TPM and another may not. Devicetree provides an excellent solution to
> +this problem, in that the devicetree to actually use on a platform can be
> +injected in the factory based on which model is being manufactured at the time.
> +
> +A related problem causing build proliferation is dealing with the differences
> +between development firmware, developer-friendly firmware (e.g. with all
> +security features present but with the ability to access the command line),
> +test firmware (which runs tests used in the factory), final production firmware
> +(before signing), signed firmware (where the signatures have been inserted) and
> +the like. Ideally all or most of these should use the same U-Boot build, with
> +just some options to determine the features available. For example, being able
> +to control whether the UART console or JTAG are available, on any image, is a
> +great debugging aid.
> +
> +When the firmware consists of multiple parts, it is helpful that all operate
> +the same way at runtime, regardless of how they were built. This can be achieved
> +by passing the runtime configuration (e.g. 'enable UART console) along the chain
> +through each firmware stage. It is frustrating to have to replicate a bug on
> +production firmware which does happen on developer firmware, because they are
> +completely different builds.
> +
> +The /config node provides useful functionality for this. It allows the different
> +controls to be 'factored out' of the U-Boot binary, so they can be controlled
> +separately from the initial source-code build. The node can be easily updated by
> +a build or factory tool and can control various features in U-Boot. It is
> +similar in concept to a Kconfig option, except that it can be changed after
> +U-Boot is built.
> +
> +The /config node is similar in concept to the `/chosen node`_ except that it is
> +for passing information *into* firmware instead of from firmware to the
> +Operating System. Also, while Linux has a (sometimes extremely long) command
> +line, U-Boot does not support this. The devicetree provides a more structured
> +approach in any case.
> +
> +
> +Devicetree in another project
> +-----------------------------
> +
> +In some cases U-Boot receive its devicetree at runtime from a program that calls
> +it. For example ARM's Trusted Firmware A (`TF-A`_) may have a devicetree that it
> +passes to U-Boot. This overrides any devicetree build by U-Boot. When packaging
> +the firmware, the U-Boot devicetree may in fact be left out if it can be
> +guaranteed that it will receive one from another project.
> +
> +In this case, the devicetree in the other project must track U-Boot's use of
> +device tree, for the following reasons:
> +
> +- U-Boot only has one devicetree. See `Why not have two devicetrees?`_.
> +- For a consistent firmware build, decisions made in early stages should be
> + communicated to later ones at runtime. For example, if the serial console is
> + enabled in an early stage, it should be enabled in U-Boot too.
> +- U-Boot is quite capable of managing its own copy of the devicetree. If
> + another project wants to bypass this (often for good reason), it is reasonable
> + that it should take on the (fairly small) requirements that U-Boot features
> + that rely on devicetree are still available
> +- The point here is not that *U-Boot needs this extra node*, or *U-Boot needs
> + to have this public key*. These features are present in U-Boot in service of
> + the entire firmware system. If the U-Boot features are used, but cannot be
> + supported in the normal way, then there is pressure to implement these
> + features in other ways. In the end, we would have a different mechanism for
> + every other project that uses U-Boot. This introduces duplicate ways of doing
> + the same thing, needlessly increases the complexity of the U-Boot source code,
> + forces authors to consider parallel implementations when writing new features,
> + makes U-Boot harder to test, complicates documentation and confuses the
> + runtime flow of U-Boot. If every board did things its own way rather than
> + contributing to the common code, U-Boot would lose a lot of its cross-platform
> + value.
> +
> +The above does not indicate *bad design* within U-Boot. Devicetree is a core
> +component of U-Boot and U-Boot makes use of it to the full. It solves a myriad
> +of problems that would otherwise need their own special C struct, binary format,
> +special property, tooling for viewing and updating, etc.
> +
> +Specifically, the other project must provide a way to add configuration and
> +other information to the devicetree for use by U-Boot, such as the /config node.
> +Note that the U-Boot in-tree devicetree source must be sufficient to build and
> +boot, so this is not a way to bypass that requirement.
> +
> +If binman is used, the devicetree source in U-Boot must contain the binman
> +definition so that a valid image can be build. This helps people discover what
> +other firmware components are needed and seek out appropriate documentation.
> +
> +If verified boot is used, the project must provide a way to inject a public key,
> +certificate or other material into the U-Boot devicetree so that it is available
> +to U-Boot at runtime. See `Signing with U-Boot devicetree`_. This may be
> +through tooling in the project itself or by making use of U-Boot's tooling.
> +
> +
[...]
> +Why not have two devicetrees?
> +-----------------------------
> +
> +Setting aside the argument for restricting U-Boot from having its own nodes and
> +properties, another idea proposed is to have two devicetrees, one for the
> +U-Boot-specific bits (here called `special`) and one for everything else (here
> +called `linux`).
> +
> +On the positive side, it might quieten the discussion alluded to in the section
> +above. But there are many negatives to consider and many open questions to
> +resolve.
> +
> +- **Bindings** - Presumably the special devicetree would have its own bindings.
> + It would not be necessary to put a `u-boot,` prefix on anything. People coming
> + across the devicetree source would wonder how it fits in with the Linux
> + devicetree.
> +
> +- **Access** - U-Boot has a nice `ofnode` API for accessing the devicetree. This
> + would need to be expanded to support two trees. Features which need to access
> + both (such as a device driver which reads the special devicetree to get some
> + configuration info) could become quite confusing to read and write.
> +
> +- **Merging** - Can the two devicetree be merged if a platform desires it? If
> + so, how is this managed in tooling? Does it happen during the build, in which
> + case they are not really separate at all. Or does U-Boot merge them at
> + runtime, in which case this adds time and memory?
> +
> +- **Efficiency** - A second device tree adds more code and more code paths. It
> + requires that both be made available to the code in U-Boot, e.g. via a
> + separate pointer or argument or API. Overall the separation would certainly
> + not speed up U-Boot, nor decrease its size.
> +
> +- **Source code** - At present `u-boot.dtsi` files provide the pieces needed for
> + U-Boot for a particular board. Would we use these same files for the special
> + devicetree?
> +
> +- **Complexity** - Two devicetrees complicates the build system since it must
> + build and package them both. Errors must be reported in such a way that it
> + is obvious which one is failing.
> +
> +- **Referencing each other** - The `u-boot,dm-xxx` tags used by driver model
> + are currently placed in the nodes they relate to. How would these tags
> + reference a node that is in a separate devicetree? What extra validation would
> + be needed?
> +
> +- **Storage** - How would the two devicetrees be stored in the image? At present
> + we simply concatenate the U-Boot binary and the devicetree. We could add the
> + special devicetree before the Linux one, so two are concatenated, but it is
> + not pretty. We could use binman to support more complex arrangements, but only
> + some boards use this at present, so it would be a big change.
> +
> +- **API** - How would another project provide two devicetree files to U-Boot at
> + runtime? Presumably this would just be too painful. But if it doesn't, it
> + would be unable to configure run-time features of U-Boot during the boot.
> +
> +- **Confusion** - No other project has two devicetrees. U-Boot would be in the
> + unfortunate position of having to describe this fact to new users, along with
> + the (arguably contrived) reason for the arrangement.
> +
> +- **Signing flow** - The current signing flow is simple as it involves running
> + `mkimage` with the U-Boot devicetree. This would have to be updated to use the
> + special devicetree. Some way of telling the user that they have done it wrong
> + would have to be invented.
> +
> +Overall, adding a second devicetree would create enormous confusion and
> +complexity. It seems a lot cheaper to solve this by a change of attitude.
> +
> +
[...]
>
Regards
/Ilias
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage
2021-08-28 16:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage Simon Glass
2021-08-30 12:46 ` Ilias Apalodimas
@ 2021-08-30 14:30 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2021-08-30 14:48 ` Tom Rini
2021-08-30 14:53 ` Marcel Ziswiler
2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Heinrich Schuchardt @ 2021-08-30 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Glass
Cc: Ilias Apalodimas, Mark Kettenis, Tom Rini, Sean Anderson,
Bin Meng, U-Boot Mailing List
On 8/28/21 6:46 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> At present some of the ideas and techniques behind devicetree in U-Boot
> are assumed, implied or unsaid. Add some documentation to cover how
> devicetree is build, how it can be modified and the rules about using
> the various CONFIG_OF_... options.
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Fix typos per Sean (thank you!) and a few others
> - Add a 'Use of U-Boot /config node' section
> - Drop mention of dm-verity since that actually uses the kernel cmdline
> - Explain that OF_BOARD will still work after these changes (in
> 'Once this bug is fixed...' paragraph)
> - Expand a bit on the reason why the 'Current situation' is bad
> - Clarify in a second place that Linux and U-Boot use the same devicetree
> in 'To be clear, while U-Boot...'
> - Expand on why we should have rules for other projects in
> 'Devicetree in another project'
> - Add a comment as to why devicetree in U-Boot is not 'bad design'
> - Reword 'in-tree U-Boot devicetree' to 'devicetree source in U-Boot'
> - Rewrite 'Devicetree generated on-the-fly in another project' to cover
> points raised on v1
> - Add 'Why does U-Boot have its nodes and properties?'
> - Add 'Why not have two devicetrees?'
>
> doc/develop/index.rst | 1 +
> doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst | 563 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> doc/develop/package/index.rst | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 565 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
>
> diff --git a/doc/develop/index.rst b/doc/develop/index.rst
> index 83c929babda..d5ad8f9fe53 100644
> --- a/doc/develop/index.rst
> +++ b/doc/develop/index.rst
> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ Packaging
> :maxdepth: 1
>
> package/index
> + package/devicetree
>
> Testing
> -------
> diff --git a/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..d922d3f87ae
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> +
> +Updating the devicetree
> +=======================
> +
> +U-Boot uses devicetree for runtime configuration and storing required blobs or
> +any other information it needs to operate. It is possible to update the
> +devicetree separately from actually building U-Boot. This provides a good degree
> +of control and flexibility for firmware that uses U-Boot in conjunction with
> +other project.
> +
> +There are many reasons why it is useful to modify the devicetree after building
> +it:
> +
> +- Configuration can be changed, e.g. which UART to use
> +- A serial number can be added
> +- Public keys can be added to allow image verification
> +- Console output can be changed (e.g. to select serial or vidconsole)
> +
> +This section describes how to work with devicetree to accomplish your goals.
> +
> +See also :doc:`../devicetree/control` for a basic summary of the available
> +features.
> +
> +
> +Devicetree source
> +-----------------
> +
> +Every board in U-Boot must include a devicetree sufficient to build and boot
> +that board on suitable hardware (or emulation). This is specified using the
> +`CONFIG DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` option.
> +
> +
> +Current situation (August 2021)
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +As an aside, at present U-Boot allows `CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` to be empty,
> +e.g. if `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` or `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` are used. This has
> +unfortunately created an enormous amount of confusion and some wasted effort.
> +This was not intended and this bug will be fixed soon.
> +
> +Some of the problems created are:
> +
> +- It is not obvious that the devicetree is coming from another project
> +
> +- There is no way to see even a sample devicetree for these platform in U-Boot,
> + so it is hard to know what is going on, e.g. which devices are typically
> + present
> +
> +- The other project may not provide a way to support U-Boot's requirements for
> + devicetree, such as the /config node. Note: On the U-Boot mailing linst, this
> + was only discovered after weeks of discussion and confusion
> +
> +- For QEMU specifically, consulting two QEMU source files is required, for which
> + there are no references in U-Boot documentation. The code is generating a
> + devicetree, but it is not clear what controls affect this generation.
> +
> +Specifically on the changes in U-Boot:
> +
> +- `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` was added in rpi_patch_ for Raspberry Pi, which does have
> + an in-tree devicetree, but this feature has since been used for boards that
> + don't
> +- `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` was added in bcm_patch_ as part of a larger Broadcom
> + change with a tag indicating it only affected one board, so the change in
> + behaviour was not noticed at the time. It has since been used by RISC-V qemu
> + boards.
> +
> +Once this bug is fixed, CONFIG_OF_BOARD and CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE will override
> +(at runtime) the devicetree suppled with U-Boot, but will otherwise use
> +CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE for the in-tree build. So these two will become options,
> +moving out of the 'choice' in `dts/Kconfig`.
> +
> +This means that there is a basic devicetree build in the U-Boot tree, for
> +build-testing, consistency and documentation purposes, but at runtime U-Boot can
> +accept its devicetree from another source.
> +
> +To be clear, while U-Boot has its own copy of the devicetree source for each
> +board, this must match the Linux source, perhaps with some u-boot.dtsi
> +additions. The intent here is not to create a separate binding, just to provide
> +a representative devicetree in U-Boot.
For many boards we lag far behind Linux' device-tree.
> +
> +Offending boards are:
> +
> +- bcm7260
> +- bcm7445
> +- qemu_arm64
> +- qemu_arm
> +- qemu-ppce500
> +- qemu-riscv32
> +- qemu-riscv32_smode
> +- qemu-riscv64
> +- qemu-riscv64_smode
> +
> +All of these need to have a devicetree added in-tree. This is targeted to be
> +fixed in the 2022.01 release.
Which devices are present is specified by the command line arguments of
QEMU. This information is used to build the devicetree in QEMU. We
should not try to use a fixed devicetree which most of the time will not
match the users command line choices.
U-Boot should only add an overlay with U-Boot specific information.
Who will be working on a fix?
> +
> +
> +Building the devicetree
> +-----------------------
> +
> +U-Boot automatically builds the devicetree for a board, from the
> +`arch/<arch>/dts` directory. The Makefile in those directories has rules for
> +building devicetree files. It is preferable to avoid target-specific rules in
> +those files: i.e. all boards for a particular SoC should be built at once,
> +where practical. Apart from simplifying the Makefile, this helps to efficiently
> +(and immediately) ensure that changes in one board's DT do not break others that
> +are related. Building devicetrees is fast, so performance is seldom a concern
> +here.
> +
> +
> +Overriding the default devicetree
> +---------------------------------
> +
> +When building U-Boot, the `DEVICE_TREE` environment variable allows the
> +default devicetree file to be overridden at build time. This can be useful if
> +modifications have to be made to the in-tree devicetree file, for the benefit
> +of a downstream build system. Note that the in-tree devicetree must be
> +sufficient to build and boot, so this is not a way to bypass that requirement.
> +
> +
> +Modifying the devicetree after building
> +---------------------------------------
> +
> +While it is generally painful and hacky to modify the code or rodata of a
> +program after it is built, in many cases it is useful to do so, e.g. to add
> +configuration information like serial numbers, enabling/disabling features, etc.
> +
> +Devicetree provides a very nice solution to these problems since it is
> +structured data and it is relatively easy to change it, even in binary form
> +(see fdtput).
> +
> +U-Boot takes care that the devicetree is easily accessible after the build
> +process. In fact it is placed in a separate file called `u-boot.dtb`. If the
> +build system wants to modify or replace that file, it can do so. Then all that
> +is needed is to run `binman update` to update the file inside the image. If
> +binman is not used, then `u-boot-nodtb.bin` and the new `u-boot.dtb` can simply
> +be concatenated to achieve the desired result. U-Boot happily copes with the
> +devicetree growing or shrinking.
> +
> +The `u-boot.bin` image contains both pieces. While it is possible to locate the
> +devicetree within the image using the signature at the start of the file, this
> +is a bit messy.
> +
> +This is why `CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE` should always be used when building U-Boot.
> +The `CONFIG_OF_EMBED` option embeds the devicetree somewhere in the U-Boot ELF
> +image as rodata, meaning that it is hard to find it and it cannot increase in
> +size.
> +
> +When modifying the devicetree, the different cases to consider are as follows:
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE
> + This is easy, described above. Just change, replace or rebuild the
> + devicetree so it suits your needs, then rerun binman or redo the `cat`
> + operation to join `u-boot-nodtb.bin` and the new `u-boot.dtb`
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_EMBED
> + This is tricky, since the devicetree cannot easily be located. If the EFL
> + file is available, then the _dtb_dt_begin and __dtb_dt_end symbols can be
> + examined to find it. While it is possible to contract the file, it is not
> + possible to expand the file since that would involve re-linking
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE
> + In this case the devicetree must be modified in the project which provides
> + it, as described below
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_BOARD
> + This is a board-specific situation, so needs to be considered on a
> + case-by-case base. The devicetree must be modified so that the correct
> + one is provided to U-Boot. How this is done depends entirely on the
> + implementation of this option for the board. It might require injecting the
> + changes into a different project somehow using tooling available there, or
> + it might involve merging an overlay file at runtime to obtain the desired
> + result.
> +
> +
> +Use of U-Boot /config node
> +--------------------------
> +
> +A common problem with firmware is that many builds are needed to deal with the
> +slight variations between different, related models. For example, one model may
> +have a TPM and another may not. Devicetree provides an excellent solution to
> +this problem, in that the devicetree to actually use on a platform can be
> +injected in the factory based on which model is being manufactured at the time.
> +
> +A related problem causing build proliferation is dealing with the differences
> +between development firmware, developer-friendly firmware (e.g. with all
> +security features present but with the ability to access the command line),
> +test firmware (which runs tests used in the factory), final production firmware
> +(before signing), signed firmware (where the signatures have been inserted) and
> +the like. Ideally all or most of these should use the same U-Boot build, with
> +just some options to determine the features available. For example, being able
> +to control whether the UART console or JTAG are available, on any image, is a
> +great debugging aid.
> +
> +When the firmware consists of multiple parts, it is helpful that all operate
> +the same way at runtime, regardless of how they were built. This can be achieved
> +by passing the runtime configuration (e.g. 'enable UART console) along the chain
> +through each firmware stage. It is frustrating to have to replicate a bug on
> +production firmware which does happen on developer firmware, because they are
> +completely different builds.
> +
> +The /config node provides useful functionality for this. It allows the different
> +controls to be 'factored out' of the U-Boot binary, so they can be controlled
> +separately from the initial source-code build. The node can be easily updated by
> +a build or factory tool and can control various features in U-Boot. It is
> +similar in concept to a Kconfig option, except that it can be changed after
> +U-Boot is built.
> +
> +The /config node is similar in concept to the `/chosen node`_ except that it is
> +for passing information *into* firmware instead of from firmware to the
> +Operating System. Also, while Linux has a (sometimes extremely long) command
> +line, U-Boot does not support this. The devicetree provides a more structured
> +approach in any case.
> +
> +
> +Devicetree in another project
> +-----------------------------
> +
> +In some cases U-Boot receive its devicetree at runtime from a program that calls
%/receive/receives/
> +it. For example ARM's Trusted Firmware A (`TF-A`_) may have a devicetree that it
> +passes to U-Boot. This overrides any devicetree build by U-Boot. When packaging
> +the firmware, the U-Boot devicetree may in fact be left out if it can be
> +guaranteed that it will receive one from another project.
> +
> +In this case, the devicetree in the other project must track U-Boot's use of
> +device tree, for the following reasons:
Currently it is Linux that sets the standards not U-Boot.
U-Boot can apply an overlay to the devicetree provided by the prior boot
stage. We should not try to force any U-Boot specific stuff onto other
projects.
> +
> +- U-Boot only has one devicetree. See `Why not have two devicetrees?`_.
> +- For a consistent firmware build, decisions made in early stages should be
> + communicated to later ones at runtime. For example, if the serial console is
> + enabled in an early stage, it should be enabled in U-Boot too.
> +- U-Boot is quite capable of managing its own copy of the devicetree. If
> + another project wants to bypass this (often for good reason), it is reasonable
> + that it should take on the (fairly small) requirements that U-Boot features
> + that rely on devicetree are still available
> +- The point here is not that *U-Boot needs this extra node*, or *U-Boot needs
> + to have this public key*. These features are present in U-Boot in service of
> + the entire firmware system. If the U-Boot features are used, but cannot be
> + supported in the normal way, then there is pressure to implement these
> + features in other ways. In the end, we would have a different mechanism for
> + every other project that uses U-Boot. This introduces duplicate ways of doing
> + the same thing, needlessly increases the complexity of the U-Boot source code,
> + forces authors to consider parallel implementations when writing new features,
> + makes U-Boot harder to test, complicates documentation and confuses the
> + runtime flow of U-Boot. If every board did things its own way rather than
> + contributing to the common code, U-Boot would lose a lot of its cross-platform
> + value.
This paragraph is incomprehensible for me.
If both the prior boot stage and U-Boot comply to the standards set by
Linux we are fine. Any U-Boot quirks should be kept out of other projects.
Best regards
Heinrich
> +
> +The above does not indicate *bad design* within U-Boot. Devicetree is a core
> +component of U-Boot and U-Boot makes use of it to the full. It solves a myriad
> +of problems that would otherwise need their own special C struct, binary format,
> +special property, tooling for viewing and updating, etc.
> +
> +Specifically, the other project must provide a way to add configuration and
> +other information to the devicetree for use by U-Boot, such as the /config node.
> +Note that the U-Boot in-tree devicetree source must be sufficient to build and
> +boot, so this is not a way to bypass that requirement.
> +
> +If binman is used, the devicetree source in U-Boot must contain the binman
> +definition so that a valid image can be build. This helps people discover what
> +other firmware components are needed and seek out appropriate documentation.
> +
> +If verified boot is used, the project must provide a way to inject a public key,
> +certificate or other material into the U-Boot devicetree so that it is available
> +to U-Boot at runtime. See `Signing with U-Boot devicetree`_. This may be
> +through tooling in the project itself or by making use of U-Boot's tooling.
> +
> +
> +Devicetree generated on-the-fly in another project
> +--------------------------------------------------
> +
> +In some rare cases, another project may wish to create a devicetree for U-Boot
> +entirely on-the-fly, then pass it to U-Boot at runtime. The only known example
> +of this at the time of writing (2021) is qemu, for ARM (`QEMU ARM`_) and
> +RISC-V (`QEMU RISC-V`_).
> +
> +In effect, when the board boots, U-Boot is *downstream* of the other project.
> +It is entirely reliant on that project for its correct operation.
> +
> +This does not mean to imply that the other project is creating its own,
> +incompatible devicetree. In fact QEMU generates a valid devicetree which is
> +suitable for both U-Boot and Linux. It is quite normal for a devicetree to be
> +present in flash and be made available to U-Boot at runtime. What matters is
> +where the devicetree comes from. If the other project builds a devicetree for
> +U-Boot then it needs to support adding the things needed by U-Boot features.
> +Without them, for example:
> +
> +- U-Boot may not boot because too many devices are enabled before relocation
> +- U-Boot may not have access to the developer or production public keys used for
> + signing
> +- U-Boot may not support controlling whether the console is enabled
> +- U-Boot may not be know which MMC device to boot from
> +- U-Boot may not be able to find other firmware components that it needs to load
> +
> +Normally, supporting U-Boot's features is trivial, since the devicetree compiler
> +(dtc) can compile the source, including any U-Boot pieces. So the burden is
> +extremely low.
> +
> +In this case, the devicetree in the other project must track U-Boot's use of
> +device tree, so that it remains compatible. See `Devicetree in another project`_
> +for reasons why.
> +
> +If a particular version of the project is needed for a particular version of
> +U-Boot, that must be documented in both projects.
> +
> +Further, it must provide a way to add configuration and other information to
> +the devicetree for use by U-Boot, such as the `/config` node and the tags used
> +by driver model. Note that the U-Boot in-tree devicetree must be sufficient to
> +build and boot, so this is not a way to bypass that requirement.
> +
> +More specifically, tooling or command-line arguments must provide a way to
> +add a `/config` node or items within that node, so that U-Boot can receive a
> +suitable configuration. It must provide a way of adding `u-boot,dm-...` tags for
> +correct operation of driver model. These options can then be used as part of the
> +build process, which puts the firmware image together. For binman, a way must be
> +provided to add the binman definition into the devicetree in the same way.
> +
> +One way to do this is to allow a .dtsi file to be merged in with the generated
> +devicetree.
> +
> +Note that the burden goes both ways. If a new feature is added to U-Boot which
> +needs support in another project, then the author of the U-Boot patch must add
> +any required support to the other project.
> +
> +
> +Passing the devicetree through to Linux
> +---------------------------------------
> +
> +Ideally U-Boot and Linux use the same devicetree source, even though it is
> +hosted in separate projects. U-Boot adds some extra pieces, such as the
> +`config/` node and tags like `u-boot,dm-spl`. Linux adds some extra pieces, such
> +as `linux,default-trigger` and `linux,code`. This should not interfere with
> +each other.
> +
> +In principle it is possible for U-Boot's control devicetree to be passed to
> +Linux. This is, after all, one of the goals of devicetree and the original
> +Open Firmware project, to have the firmware provide the hardware description to
> +the Operating System.
> +
> +For boards where this approach is used, care must be taken. U-Boot typically
> +needs to 'fix up' the devicetree before passing it to Linux, e.g. to add
> +information about the memory map, about which serial console is used, provide
> +the kernel address space layout randomization (KASLR) seed or select whether the
> +console should be silenced for a faster boot.
> +
> +Fix-ups involve modifying the devicetree. If the control devicetree is used,
> +that means the control devicetree could be modified, while U-Boot is using it.
> +Removing a device and reinserting it can cause problems if the devicetree offset
> +has changed, for example, since the device will be unable to locates its
> +devicetree properties at the expected devicetree offset, which is a fixed
> +integer.
> +
> +To deal with this, it is recommended to employ one or more of the following
> +approaches:
> +
> +- Make a copy of the devicetree and 'fix up' the copy, leaving the control
> + devicetree alone
> +- Enable `CONFIG_OF_LIVE` so that U-Boot makes its own copy of the devicetree
> + during relocation; fixups then happen on the original flat tree
> +- Ensure that fix-ups happen after all loading has happened and U-Boot has
> + completed image verification
> +
> +In practice,the last point is typically observed, since boot_prep_linux() is
> +called just before jumping to Linux, long after signature verification, for
> +example. But it is important to make sure that this line is not blurred,
> +particularly if untrusted user data is involved.
> +
> +
> +Devicetree use cases that must be supported
> +-------------------------------------------
> +
> +Regardless of how the devicetree is provided to U-Boot at runtime, various
> +U-Boot features must be fully supported. This section describes some of these
> +features and the implications for other projects.
> +
> +If U-Boot uses its own in-tree devicetree these features are supported
> +automatically.
> +
> +
> +Signing with U-Boot devicetree
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +U-Boot supports signing a payload so that it can be verified to have been
> +created by a party owning a private key. This is called verified boot in U-Boot
> +(see doc/uImage.FIT/verified-boot.txt).
> +
> +Typically this works by creating a FIT and then running the `mkimage` tool to
> +add signatures for particular images. As part of this process, `mkimage` writes
> +a public key to the U-Boot devicetree, although this can be done separately.
> +See fdt_add_pubkey_ for patches for a suitable tool, for example.
> +
> +As with all configuration information, if another project is providing the
> +devicetree to U-Boot, it must provide a way to add this public key into the
> +devicetree it passes to U-Boot. This could be via a tooling option, making use
> +of `mkimage`, or allowing a .dtsi file to be merged in with what is generated in
> +the other project.
> +
> +
> +Providing the binman image definition
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +In complex systems U-Boot must locate and make use of other firmware components,
> +such as images for the user interface, files containing peripheral firmware,
> +multiple copies of U-Boot for use with A/B boot, etc. U-Boot uses
> +:doc:`Binman <binman>` as a standard way of putting an image together.
> +
> +Typically this works by running binman with the devicetree as an input, to
> +create the file image. Binman then outputs an updated devicetree which is
> +packed in the firmware image, so U-Boot can access the binman definition and
> +locate all the components.
> +
> +As with all configuration information, if another project is providing the
> +devicetree to U-Boot, it must provide a way to add this binman definition into
> +the devicetree it passes to U-Boot. This could be via a tooling option, making
> +use of `binman`, or alowing a .dtsi file to be merged in with what is generated
> +in the other project.
> +
> +
> +Protecting the devicetree
> +-------------------------
> +
> +U-Boot relies heavily on devicetree for correct operation. A corrupt or invalid
> +device can cause U-Boot to fail to start, behave incorrectly, crash (e.g. if
> +`CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_ASSUME_MASK` is adjusted, or fail to boot an Operating System.
> +Within U-Boot, the devicetree is as important as any other part of the source
> +code. At ruuntime, the devicetree can be considered to be structured rodata.
> +
> +With secure systems, care must be taken that the devicetree is valid:
> +
> +- If the code / rodata has a hash or signature, the devicetree should also, if
> + they are packaged separately.
> +- If the code / rodata is write-protected when running, the devicetree should be
> + also. Note that U-Boot relocates its code and devicetree, so this is not as
> + simple as it sounds. U-Boot must write-protect these items after relocating.
> +
> +
> +Why does U-Boot have its nodes and properties?
> +----------------------------------------------
> +
> +See also :doc:`../devicetree/intro`.
> +
> +There has been pushback at the concept that U-Boot dares have its own nodes and
> +properties in the devicetree.
> +
> +Apart from these nodes and properties, U-Boot uses the same bindings as Linux.
> +A `u-boot.dtsi` file helps to keep U-Boot-specific changes in separate files,
> +making it easier to keep devicetree source files in U-Boot in sync with Linux.
> +
> +As a counter-example, the Zephyr OS project takes a different approach. It uses
> +entirely different bindings, in general, making no effort to sync devicetree
> +source files with Linux. U-Boot strives to be compatible with Linux in a number
> +of ways, such as source code style and common APIs, to aid porting of code
> +between the projects. Devicetree is another way where U-Boot and Linux follow a
> +similar approach.
> +
> +Fundamentally, the idea that U-Boot cannot have its own tags flies in the face
> +of the devicetree specification (see dtspec_), which says:
> +
> + Nonstandard property names should specify a **unique string prefix**, such as
> + a stock ticker symbol, identifying the name of the company **or organization**
> + that defined the property. Examples:
> +
> + - fsl,channel-fifo-len
> + - ibm,ppc-interrupt-server#s
> + - **linux**,network-index
> +
> +It is also fundamentally unbalanced. Linux has many tags of its own (some 36 in
> +version 5.13) and at least one Linux-specific node, even if you ignore things
> +like flash partitions which clearly provide configuration information to Linux.
> +
> +Practically speaking there are many reasons why U-Boot has its own nodes and
> +properties. Some examples:
> +
> +- Binding every device before relocation even if it won't be used, consumes time
> + and memory: tags on each node can specify which are needed in SPL or before
> + relocation. Linux has no such constraints.
> +
> +- Requiring the full clock tree to be up and running just to get the debug UART
> + running is inefficient. It is also and self-defeating, since if that much
> + code is working properly, you probably don't need the debug UART. A devicetree
> + property to provide the UART input-clock frequency is a simple solution.
> +
> +- U-Boot does not have a user space to provide policy and configuration. It
> + cannot do what Linux does and run programs and look up filesystems to figure
> + out how to boot.
> +
> +
> +Why not have two devicetrees?
> +-----------------------------
> +
> +Setting aside the argument for restricting U-Boot from having its own nodes and
> +properties, another idea proposed is to have two devicetrees, one for the
> +U-Boot-specific bits (here called `special`) and one for everything else (here
> +called `linux`).
> +
> +On the positive side, it might quieten the discussion alluded to in the section
> +above. But there are many negatives to consider and many open questions to
> +resolve.
> +
> +- **Bindings** - Presumably the special devicetree would have its own bindings.
> + It would not be necessary to put a `u-boot,` prefix on anything. People coming
> + across the devicetree source would wonder how it fits in with the Linux
> + devicetree.
> +
> +- **Access** - U-Boot has a nice `ofnode` API for accessing the devicetree. This
> + would need to be expanded to support two trees. Features which need to access
> + both (such as a device driver which reads the special devicetree to get some
> + configuration info) could become quite confusing to read and write.
> +
> +- **Merging** - Can the two devicetree be merged if a platform desires it? If
> + so, how is this managed in tooling? Does it happen during the build, in which
> + case they are not really separate at all. Or does U-Boot merge them at
> + runtime, in which case this adds time and memory?
> +
> +- **Efficiency** - A second device tree adds more code and more code paths. It
> + requires that both be made available to the code in U-Boot, e.g. via a
> + separate pointer or argument or API. Overall the separation would certainly
> + not speed up U-Boot, nor decrease its size.
> +
> +- **Source code** - At present `u-boot.dtsi` files provide the pieces needed for
> + U-Boot for a particular board. Would we use these same files for the special
> + devicetree?
> +
> +- **Complexity** - Two devicetrees complicates the build system since it must
> + build and package them both. Errors must be reported in such a way that it
> + is obvious which one is failing.
> +
> +- **Referencing each other** - The `u-boot,dm-xxx` tags used by driver model
> + are currently placed in the nodes they relate to. How would these tags
> + reference a node that is in a separate devicetree? What extra validation would
> + be needed?
> +
> +- **Storage** - How would the two devicetrees be stored in the image? At present
> + we simply concatenate the U-Boot binary and the devicetree. We could add the
> + special devicetree before the Linux one, so two are concatenated, but it is
> + not pretty. We could use binman to support more complex arrangements, but only
> + some boards use this at present, so it would be a big change.
> +
> +- **API** - How would another project provide two devicetree files to U-Boot at
> + runtime? Presumably this would just be too painful. But if it doesn't, it
> + would be unable to configure run-time features of U-Boot during the boot.
> +
> +- **Confusion** - No other project has two devicetrees. U-Boot would be in the
> + unfortunate position of having to describe this fact to new users, along with
> + the (arguably contrived) reason for the arrangement.
> +
> +- **Signing flow** - The current signing flow is simple as it involves running
> + `mkimage` with the U-Boot devicetree. This would have to be updated to use the
> + special devicetree. Some way of telling the user that they have done it wrong
> + would have to be invented.
> +
> +Overall, adding a second devicetree would create enormous confusion and
> +complexity. It seems a lot cheaper to solve this by a change of attitude.
> +
> +
> +.. _rpi_patch: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20170402082520.32546-1-deymo@google.com/
> +.. _bcm_patch: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/16fc0901f4521d3c399eac950c52a634b2f9473b.1528485916.git.fitzsim@fitzsim.org/
> +.. _`TF-A`: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/tf-a
> +.. _`QEMU ARM`: https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/hw/arm/virt.c
> +.. _`QEMU RISC-V`: https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/hw/riscv/virt.c
> +.. _`/chosen node`: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt
> +.. _fdt_add_pubkey: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=157843&state=*
> +.. _dtspec: https://www.devicetree.org/specifications/
> diff --git a/doc/develop/package/index.rst b/doc/develop/package/index.rst
> index 9374be2e62c..188c376950e 100644
> --- a/doc/develop/package/index.rst
> +++ b/doc/develop/package/index.rst
> @@ -17,3 +17,4 @@ SPI flash.
> :maxdepth: 2
>
> binman
> + devicetree
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage
2021-08-30 14:30 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
@ 2021-08-30 14:48 ` Tom Rini
2021-08-30 15:14 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2021-09-03 8:53 ` Simon Glass
0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2021-08-30 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heinrich Schuchardt
Cc: Simon Glass, Ilias Apalodimas, Mark Kettenis, Sean Anderson,
Bin Meng, U-Boot Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9405 bytes --]
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>
>
> On 8/28/21 6:46 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > At present some of the ideas and techniques behind devicetree in U-Boot
> > are assumed, implied or unsaid. Add some documentation to cover how
> > devicetree is build, how it can be modified and the rules about using
> > the various CONFIG_OF_... options.
I feel like I should emphasize that this is "document what we have
today" at least as much, if not more-so, than "document what we want to
move to tomorrow".
In that this highlights some design disagreements that need to be
settled, good. But lets perhaps start separate threads on those areas?
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Fix typos per Sean (thank you!) and a few others
> > - Add a 'Use of U-Boot /config node' section
> > - Drop mention of dm-verity since that actually uses the kernel cmdline
> > - Explain that OF_BOARD will still work after these changes (in
> > 'Once this bug is fixed...' paragraph)
> > - Expand a bit on the reason why the 'Current situation' is bad
> > - Clarify in a second place that Linux and U-Boot use the same devicetree
> > in 'To be clear, while U-Boot...'
> > - Expand on why we should have rules for other projects in
> > 'Devicetree in another project'
> > - Add a comment as to why devicetree in U-Boot is not 'bad design'
> > - Reword 'in-tree U-Boot devicetree' to 'devicetree source in U-Boot'
> > - Rewrite 'Devicetree generated on-the-fly in another project' to cover
> > points raised on v1
> > - Add 'Why does U-Boot have its nodes and properties?'
> > - Add 'Why not have two devicetrees?'
> >
> > doc/develop/index.rst | 1 +
> > doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst | 563 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > doc/develop/package/index.rst | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 565 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/develop/index.rst b/doc/develop/index.rst
> > index 83c929babda..d5ad8f9fe53 100644
> > --- a/doc/develop/index.rst
> > +++ b/doc/develop/index.rst
> > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ Packaging
> > :maxdepth: 1
> >
> > package/index
> > + package/devicetree
> >
> > Testing
> > -------
> > diff --git a/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..d922d3f87ae
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> > @@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
> > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > +
> > +Updating the devicetree
> > +=======================
> > +
> > +U-Boot uses devicetree for runtime configuration and storing required blobs or
> > +any other information it needs to operate. It is possible to update the
> > +devicetree separately from actually building U-Boot. This provides a good degree
> > +of control and flexibility for firmware that uses U-Boot in conjunction with
> > +other project.
> > +
> > +There are many reasons why it is useful to modify the devicetree after building
> > +it:
> > +
> > +- Configuration can be changed, e.g. which UART to use
> > +- A serial number can be added
> > +- Public keys can be added to allow image verification
> > +- Console output can be changed (e.g. to select serial or vidconsole)
> > +
> > +This section describes how to work with devicetree to accomplish your goals.
> > +
> > +See also :doc:`../devicetree/control` for a basic summary of the available
> > +features.
> > +
> > +
> > +Devicetree source
> > +-----------------
> > +
> > +Every board in U-Boot must include a devicetree sufficient to build and boot
> > +that board on suitable hardware (or emulation). This is specified using the
> > +`CONFIG DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` option.
> > +
> > +
> > +Current situation (August 2021)
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +As an aside, at present U-Boot allows `CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` to be empty,
> > +e.g. if `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` or `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` are used. This has
> > +unfortunately created an enormous amount of confusion and some wasted effort.
> > +This was not intended and this bug will be fixed soon.
> > +
> > +Some of the problems created are:
> > +
> > +- It is not obvious that the devicetree is coming from another project
> > +
> > +- There is no way to see even a sample devicetree for these platform in U-Boot,
> > + so it is hard to know what is going on, e.g. which devices are typically
> > + present
> > +
> > +- The other project may not provide a way to support U-Boot's requirements for
> > + devicetree, such as the /config node. Note: On the U-Boot mailing linst, this
> > + was only discovered after weeks of discussion and confusion
> > +
> > +- For QEMU specifically, consulting two QEMU source files is required, for which
> > + there are no references in U-Boot documentation. The code is generating a
> > + devicetree, but it is not clear what controls affect this generation.
> > +
> > +Specifically on the changes in U-Boot:
> > +
> > +- `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` was added in rpi_patch_ for Raspberry Pi, which does have
> > + an in-tree devicetree, but this feature has since been used for boards that
> > + don't
> > +- `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` was added in bcm_patch_ as part of a larger Broadcom
> > + change with a tag indicating it only affected one board, so the change in
> > + behaviour was not noticed at the time. It has since been used by RISC-V qemu
> > + boards.
> > +
> > +Once this bug is fixed, CONFIG_OF_BOARD and CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE will override
> > +(at runtime) the devicetree suppled with U-Boot, but will otherwise use
> > +CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE for the in-tree build. So these two will become options,
> > +moving out of the 'choice' in `dts/Kconfig`.
> > +
> > +This means that there is a basic devicetree build in the U-Boot tree, for
> > +build-testing, consistency and documentation purposes, but at runtime U-Boot can
> > +accept its devicetree from another source.
> > +
> > +To be clear, while U-Boot has its own copy of the devicetree source for each
> > +board, this must match the Linux source, perhaps with some u-boot.dtsi
> > +additions. The intent here is not to create a separate binding, just to provide
> > +a representative devicetree in U-Boot.
>
> For many boards we lag far behind Linux' device-tree.
Which is a huge problem that needs to be fixed. The intention has never
been to "commit and forget".
[snip]
> > +it. For example ARM's Trusted Firmware A (`TF-A`_) may have a devicetree that it
> > +passes to U-Boot. This overrides any devicetree build by U-Boot. When packaging
> > +the firmware, the U-Boot devicetree may in fact be left out if it can be
> > +guaranteed that it will receive one from another project.
> > +
> > +In this case, the devicetree in the other project must track U-Boot's use of
> > +device tree, for the following reasons:
>
> Currently it is Linux that sets the standards not U-Boot.
Well no, Linux isn't supposed to set "the standard" here either. It's
OS-agnostic.
> U-Boot can apply an overlay to the devicetree provided by the prior boot
> stage. We should not try to force any U-Boot specific stuff onto other
> projects.
We should, when applicable, submit our bindings upstream just like any
other project. We also want to make sure that when we do so, we hold
ourselves to a high standard.
> > +- U-Boot only has one devicetree. See `Why not have two devicetrees?`_.
> > +- For a consistent firmware build, decisions made in early stages should be
> > + communicated to later ones at runtime. For example, if the serial console is
> > + enabled in an early stage, it should be enabled in U-Boot too.
> > +- U-Boot is quite capable of managing its own copy of the devicetree. If
> > + another project wants to bypass this (often for good reason), it is reasonable
> > + that it should take on the (fairly small) requirements that U-Boot features
> > + that rely on devicetree are still available
> > +- The point here is not that *U-Boot needs this extra node*, or *U-Boot needs
> > + to have this public key*. These features are present in U-Boot in service of
> > + the entire firmware system. If the U-Boot features are used, but cannot be
> > + supported in the normal way, then there is pressure to implement these
> > + features in other ways. In the end, we would have a different mechanism for
> > + every other project that uses U-Boot. This introduces duplicate ways of doing
> > + the same thing, needlessly increases the complexity of the U-Boot source code,
> > + forces authors to consider parallel implementations when writing new features,
> > + makes U-Boot harder to test, complicates documentation and confuses the
> > + runtime flow of U-Boot. If every board did things its own way rather than
> > + contributing to the common code, U-Boot would lose a lot of its cross-platform
> > + value.
>
> This paragraph is incomprehensible for me.
>
> If both the prior boot stage and U-Boot comply to the standards set by
> Linux we are fine. Any U-Boot quirks should be kept out of other projects.
It's not the "Linux" device tree. It's the device tree for the system.
--
Tom
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage
2021-08-30 14:48 ` Tom Rini
@ 2021-08-30 15:14 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2021-08-30 16:15 ` Tom Rini
2021-09-03 8:53 ` Simon Glass
1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Heinrich Schuchardt @ 2021-08-30 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini
Cc: Simon Glass, Ilias Apalodimas, Mark Kettenis, Sean Anderson,
Bin Meng, U-Boot Mailing List
On 8/30/21 4:48 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/28/21 6:46 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> At present some of the ideas and techniques behind devicetree in U-Boot
>>> are assumed, implied or unsaid. Add some documentation to cover how
>>> devicetree is build, how it can be modified and the rules about using
>>> the various CONFIG_OF_... options.
>
> I feel like I should emphasize that this is "document what we have
> today" at least as much, if not more-so, than "document what we want to
> move to tomorrow".
>
> In that this highlights some design disagreements that need to be
> settled, good. But lets perhaps start separate threads on those areas?
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Fix typos per Sean (thank you!) and a few others
>>> - Add a 'Use of U-Boot /config node' section
>>> - Drop mention of dm-verity since that actually uses the kernel cmdline
>>> - Explain that OF_BOARD will still work after these changes (in
>>> 'Once this bug is fixed...' paragraph)
>>> - Expand a bit on the reason why the 'Current situation' is bad
>>> - Clarify in a second place that Linux and U-Boot use the same devicetree
>>> in 'To be clear, while U-Boot...'
>>> - Expand on why we should have rules for other projects in
>>> 'Devicetree in another project'
>>> - Add a comment as to why devicetree in U-Boot is not 'bad design'
>>> - Reword 'in-tree U-Boot devicetree' to 'devicetree source in U-Boot'
>>> - Rewrite 'Devicetree generated on-the-fly in another project' to cover
>>> points raised on v1
>>> - Add 'Why does U-Boot have its nodes and properties?'
>>> - Add 'Why not have two devicetrees?'
>>>
>>> doc/develop/index.rst | 1 +
>>> doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst | 563 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> doc/develop/package/index.rst | 1 +
>>> 3 files changed, 565 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/develop/index.rst b/doc/develop/index.rst
>>> index 83c929babda..d5ad8f9fe53 100644
>>> --- a/doc/develop/index.rst
>>> +++ b/doc/develop/index.rst
>>> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ Packaging
>>> :maxdepth: 1
>>>
>>> package/index
>>> + package/devicetree
>>>
>>> Testing
>>> -------
>>> diff --git a/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 00000000000..d922d3f87ae
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
>>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>>> +
>>> +Updating the devicetree
>>> +=======================
>>> +
>>> +U-Boot uses devicetree for runtime configuration and storing required blobs or
>>> +any other information it needs to operate. It is possible to update the
>>> +devicetree separately from actually building U-Boot. This provides a good degree
>>> +of control and flexibility for firmware that uses U-Boot in conjunction with
>>> +other project.
>>> +
>>> +There are many reasons why it is useful to modify the devicetree after building
>>> +it:
>>> +
>>> +- Configuration can be changed, e.g. which UART to use
>>> +- A serial number can be added
>>> +- Public keys can be added to allow image verification
>>> +- Console output can be changed (e.g. to select serial or vidconsole)
>>> +
>>> +This section describes how to work with devicetree to accomplish your goals.
>>> +
>>> +See also :doc:`../devicetree/control` for a basic summary of the available
>>> +features.
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +Devicetree source
>>> +-----------------
>>> +
>>> +Every board in U-Boot must include a devicetree sufficient to build and boot
>>> +that board on suitable hardware (or emulation). This is specified using the
>>> +`CONFIG DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` option.
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +Current situation (August 2021)
>>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> +
>>> +As an aside, at present U-Boot allows `CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` to be empty,
>>> +e.g. if `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` or `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` are used. This has
>>> +unfortunately created an enormous amount of confusion and some wasted effort.
>>> +This was not intended and this bug will be fixed soon.
>>> +
>>> +Some of the problems created are:
>>> +
>>> +- It is not obvious that the devicetree is coming from another project
>>> +
>>> +- There is no way to see even a sample devicetree for these platform in U-Boot,
>>> + so it is hard to know what is going on, e.g. which devices are typically
>>> + present
>>> +
>>> +- The other project may not provide a way to support U-Boot's requirements for
>>> + devicetree, such as the /config node. Note: On the U-Boot mailing linst, this
>>> + was only discovered after weeks of discussion and confusion
>>> +
>>> +- For QEMU specifically, consulting two QEMU source files is required, for which
>>> + there are no references in U-Boot documentation. The code is generating a
>>> + devicetree, but it is not clear what controls affect this generation.
>>> +
>>> +Specifically on the changes in U-Boot:
>>> +
>>> +- `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` was added in rpi_patch_ for Raspberry Pi, which does have
>>> + an in-tree devicetree, but this feature has since been used for boards that
>>> + don't
>>> +- `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` was added in bcm_patch_ as part of a larger Broadcom
>>> + change with a tag indicating it only affected one board, so the change in
>>> + behaviour was not noticed at the time. It has since been used by RISC-V qemu
>>> + boards.
>>> +
>>> +Once this bug is fixed, CONFIG_OF_BOARD and CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE will override
>>> +(at runtime) the devicetree suppled with U-Boot, but will otherwise use
>>> +CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE for the in-tree build. So these two will become options,
>>> +moving out of the 'choice' in `dts/Kconfig`.
>>> +
>>> +This means that there is a basic devicetree build in the U-Boot tree, for
>>> +build-testing, consistency and documentation purposes, but at runtime U-Boot can
>>> +accept its devicetree from another source.
>>> +
>>> +To be clear, while U-Boot has its own copy of the devicetree source for each
>>> +board, this must match the Linux source, perhaps with some u-boot.dtsi
>>> +additions. The intent here is not to create a separate binding, just to provide
>>> +a representative devicetree in U-Boot.
>>
>> For many boards we lag far behind Linux' device-tree.
>
> Which is a huge problem that needs to be fixed. The intention has never
> been to "commit and forget".
>
> [snip]
>>> +it. For example ARM's Trusted Firmware A (`TF-A`_) may have a devicetree that it
>>> +passes to U-Boot. This overrides any devicetree build by U-Boot. When packaging
>>> +the firmware, the U-Boot devicetree may in fact be left out if it can be
>>> +guaranteed that it will receive one from another project.
>>> +
>>> +In this case, the devicetree in the other project must track U-Boot's use of
>>> +device tree, for the following reasons:
>>
>> Currently it is Linux that sets the standards not U-Boot.
>
> Well no, Linux isn't supposed to set "the standard" here either. It's
> OS-agnostic.
>
>> U-Boot can apply an overlay to the devicetree provided by the prior boot
>> stage. We should not try to force any U-Boot specific stuff onto other
>> projects.
>
> We should, when applicable, submit our bindings upstream just like any
> other project. We also want to make sure that when we do so, we hold
> ourselves to a high standard.
What would you consider upstream for compatible( "u-boot,*" )?
Even if we upstream the binding to some global list of binding I think
U-Boot still should provide an overlay with this content.
Best regards
Heinrich
>
>>> +- U-Boot only has one devicetree. See `Why not have two devicetrees?`_.
>>> +- For a consistent firmware build, decisions made in early stages should be
>>> + communicated to later ones at runtime. For example, if the serial console is
>>> + enabled in an early stage, it should be enabled in U-Boot too.
>>> +- U-Boot is quite capable of managing its own copy of the devicetree. If
>>> + another project wants to bypass this (often for good reason), it is reasonable
>>> + that it should take on the (fairly small) requirements that U-Boot features
>>> + that rely on devicetree are still available
>>> +- The point here is not that *U-Boot needs this extra node*, or *U-Boot needs
>>> + to have this public key*. These features are present in U-Boot in service of
>>> + the entire firmware system. If the U-Boot features are used, but cannot be
>>> + supported in the normal way, then there is pressure to implement these
>>> + features in other ways. In the end, we would have a different mechanism for
>>> + every other project that uses U-Boot. This introduces duplicate ways of doing
>>> + the same thing, needlessly increases the complexity of the U-Boot source code,
>>> + forces authors to consider parallel implementations when writing new features,
>>> + makes U-Boot harder to test, complicates documentation and confuses the
>>> + runtime flow of U-Boot. If every board did things its own way rather than
>>> + contributing to the common code, U-Boot would lose a lot of its cross-platform
>>> + value.
>>
>> This paragraph is incomprehensible for me.
>>
>> If both the prior boot stage and U-Boot comply to the standards set by
>> Linux we are fine. Any U-Boot quirks should be kept out of other projects.
>
> It's not the "Linux" device tree. It's the device tree for the system.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage
2021-08-30 15:14 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
@ 2021-08-30 16:15 ` Tom Rini
2021-09-03 8:53 ` Simon Glass
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2021-08-30 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heinrich Schuchardt
Cc: Simon Glass, Ilias Apalodimas, Mark Kettenis, Sean Anderson,
Bin Meng, U-Boot Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9033 bytes --]
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 05:14:53PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>
>
> On 8/30/21 4:48 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/28/21 6:46 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > At present some of the ideas and techniques behind devicetree in U-Boot
> > > > are assumed, implied or unsaid. Add some documentation to cover how
> > > > devicetree is build, how it can be modified and the rules about using
> > > > the various CONFIG_OF_... options.
> >
> > I feel like I should emphasize that this is "document what we have
> > today" at least as much, if not more-so, than "document what we want to
> > move to tomorrow".
> >
> > In that this highlights some design disagreements that need to be
> > settled, good. But lets perhaps start separate threads on those areas?
> >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - Fix typos per Sean (thank you!) and a few others
> > > > - Add a 'Use of U-Boot /config node' section
> > > > - Drop mention of dm-verity since that actually uses the kernel cmdline
> > > > - Explain that OF_BOARD will still work after these changes (in
> > > > 'Once this bug is fixed...' paragraph)
> > > > - Expand a bit on the reason why the 'Current situation' is bad
> > > > - Clarify in a second place that Linux and U-Boot use the same devicetree
> > > > in 'To be clear, while U-Boot...'
> > > > - Expand on why we should have rules for other projects in
> > > > 'Devicetree in another project'
> > > > - Add a comment as to why devicetree in U-Boot is not 'bad design'
> > > > - Reword 'in-tree U-Boot devicetree' to 'devicetree source in U-Boot'
> > > > - Rewrite 'Devicetree generated on-the-fly in another project' to cover
> > > > points raised on v1
> > > > - Add 'Why does U-Boot have its nodes and properties?'
> > > > - Add 'Why not have two devicetrees?'
> > > >
> > > > doc/develop/index.rst | 1 +
> > > > doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst | 563 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > doc/develop/package/index.rst | 1 +
> > > > 3 files changed, 565 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/doc/develop/index.rst b/doc/develop/index.rst
> > > > index 83c929babda..d5ad8f9fe53 100644
> > > > --- a/doc/develop/index.rst
> > > > +++ b/doc/develop/index.rst
> > > > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ Packaging
> > > > :maxdepth: 1
> > > >
> > > > package/index
> > > > + package/devicetree
> > > >
> > > > Testing
> > > > -------
> > > > diff --git a/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 00000000000..d922d3f87ae
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
> > > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > > +
> > > > +Updating the devicetree
> > > > +=======================
> > > > +
> > > > +U-Boot uses devicetree for runtime configuration and storing required blobs or
> > > > +any other information it needs to operate. It is possible to update the
> > > > +devicetree separately from actually building U-Boot. This provides a good degree
> > > > +of control and flexibility for firmware that uses U-Boot in conjunction with
> > > > +other project.
> > > > +
> > > > +There are many reasons why it is useful to modify the devicetree after building
> > > > +it:
> > > > +
> > > > +- Configuration can be changed, e.g. which UART to use
> > > > +- A serial number can be added
> > > > +- Public keys can be added to allow image verification
> > > > +- Console output can be changed (e.g. to select serial or vidconsole)
> > > > +
> > > > +This section describes how to work with devicetree to accomplish your goals.
> > > > +
> > > > +See also :doc:`../devicetree/control` for a basic summary of the available
> > > > +features.
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > +Devicetree source
> > > > +-----------------
> > > > +
> > > > +Every board in U-Boot must include a devicetree sufficient to build and boot
> > > > +that board on suitable hardware (or emulation). This is specified using the
> > > > +`CONFIG DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` option.
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > +Current situation (August 2021)
> > > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > +
> > > > +As an aside, at present U-Boot allows `CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` to be empty,
> > > > +e.g. if `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` or `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` are used. This has
> > > > +unfortunately created an enormous amount of confusion and some wasted effort.
> > > > +This was not intended and this bug will be fixed soon.
> > > > +
> > > > +Some of the problems created are:
> > > > +
> > > > +- It is not obvious that the devicetree is coming from another project
> > > > +
> > > > +- There is no way to see even a sample devicetree for these platform in U-Boot,
> > > > + so it is hard to know what is going on, e.g. which devices are typically
> > > > + present
> > > > +
> > > > +- The other project may not provide a way to support U-Boot's requirements for
> > > > + devicetree, such as the /config node. Note: On the U-Boot mailing linst, this
> > > > + was only discovered after weeks of discussion and confusion
> > > > +
> > > > +- For QEMU specifically, consulting two QEMU source files is required, for which
> > > > + there are no references in U-Boot documentation. The code is generating a
> > > > + devicetree, but it is not clear what controls affect this generation.
> > > > +
> > > > +Specifically on the changes in U-Boot:
> > > > +
> > > > +- `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` was added in rpi_patch_ for Raspberry Pi, which does have
> > > > + an in-tree devicetree, but this feature has since been used for boards that
> > > > + don't
> > > > +- `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` was added in bcm_patch_ as part of a larger Broadcom
> > > > + change with a tag indicating it only affected one board, so the change in
> > > > + behaviour was not noticed at the time. It has since been used by RISC-V qemu
> > > > + boards.
> > > > +
> > > > +Once this bug is fixed, CONFIG_OF_BOARD and CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE will override
> > > > +(at runtime) the devicetree suppled with U-Boot, but will otherwise use
> > > > +CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE for the in-tree build. So these two will become options,
> > > > +moving out of the 'choice' in `dts/Kconfig`.
> > > > +
> > > > +This means that there is a basic devicetree build in the U-Boot tree, for
> > > > +build-testing, consistency and documentation purposes, but at runtime U-Boot can
> > > > +accept its devicetree from another source.
> > > > +
> > > > +To be clear, while U-Boot has its own copy of the devicetree source for each
> > > > +board, this must match the Linux source, perhaps with some u-boot.dtsi
> > > > +additions. The intent here is not to create a separate binding, just to provide
> > > > +a representative devicetree in U-Boot.
> > >
> > > For many boards we lag far behind Linux' device-tree.
> >
> > Which is a huge problem that needs to be fixed. The intention has never
> > been to "commit and forget".
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > +it. For example ARM's Trusted Firmware A (`TF-A`_) may have a devicetree that it
> > > > +passes to U-Boot. This overrides any devicetree build by U-Boot. When packaging
> > > > +the firmware, the U-Boot devicetree may in fact be left out if it can be
> > > > +guaranteed that it will receive one from another project.
> > > > +
> > > > +In this case, the devicetree in the other project must track U-Boot's use of
> > > > +device tree, for the following reasons:
> > >
> > > Currently it is Linux that sets the standards not U-Boot.
> >
> > Well no, Linux isn't supposed to set "the standard" here either. It's
> > OS-agnostic.
> >
> > > U-Boot can apply an overlay to the devicetree provided by the prior boot
> > > stage. We should not try to force any U-Boot specific stuff onto other
> > > projects.
> >
> > We should, when applicable, submit our bindings upstream just like any
> > other project. We also want to make sure that when we do so, we hold
> > ourselves to a high standard.
>
> What would you consider upstream for compatible( "u-boot,*" )?
As I believe Simon is the main author of most of them, I'll let him
chime in here as well. But I suspect things like "u-boot,bootcount*"
are a good example of something to polish and push upstream.
In the same vein as to how mtd partitions are valid in device trees, our
binding for where environment is stored on MMC is likely another
candidate.
> Even if we upstream the binding to some global list of binding I think
> U-Boot still should provide an overlay with this content.
Depending if we have stuff that both we need and can't reasonably
suggest moving upstream, sure.
--
Tom
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage
2021-08-30 16:15 ` Tom Rini
@ 2021-09-03 8:53 ` Simon Glass
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2021-09-03 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini
Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt, Ilias Apalodimas, Mark Kettenis,
Sean Anderson, Bin Meng, U-Boot Mailing List
Hi,
On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 10:15, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 05:14:53PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/30/21 4:48 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8/28/21 6:46 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > At present some of the ideas and techniques behind devicetree in U-Boot
> > > > > are assumed, implied or unsaid. Add some documentation to cover how
> > > > > devicetree is build, how it can be modified and the rules about using
> > > > > the various CONFIG_OF_... options.
> > >
> > > I feel like I should emphasize that this is "document what we have
> > > today" at least as much, if not more-so, than "document what we want to
> > > move to tomorrow".
> > >
> > > In that this highlights some design disagreements that need to be
> > > settled, good. But lets perhaps start separate threads on those areas?
> > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > - Fix typos per Sean (thank you!) and a few others
> > > > > - Add a 'Use of U-Boot /config node' section
> > > > > - Drop mention of dm-verity since that actually uses the kernel cmdline
> > > > > - Explain that OF_BOARD will still work after these changes (in
> > > > > 'Once this bug is fixed...' paragraph)
> > > > > - Expand a bit on the reason why the 'Current situation' is bad
> > > > > - Clarify in a second place that Linux and U-Boot use the same devicetree
> > > > > in 'To be clear, while U-Boot...'
> > > > > - Expand on why we should have rules for other projects in
> > > > > 'Devicetree in another project'
> > > > > - Add a comment as to why devicetree in U-Boot is not 'bad design'
> > > > > - Reword 'in-tree U-Boot devicetree' to 'devicetree source in U-Boot'
> > > > > - Rewrite 'Devicetree generated on-the-fly in another project' to cover
> > > > > points raised on v1
> > > > > - Add 'Why does U-Boot have its nodes and properties?'
> > > > > - Add 'Why not have two devicetrees?'
> > > > >
> > > > > doc/develop/index.rst | 1 +
> > > > > doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst | 563 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > doc/develop/package/index.rst | 1 +
> > > > > 3 files changed, 565 insertions(+)
> > > > > create mode 100644 doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/doc/develop/index.rst b/doc/develop/index.rst
> > > > > index 83c929babda..d5ad8f9fe53 100644
> > > > > --- a/doc/develop/index.rst
> > > > > +++ b/doc/develop/index.rst
> > > > > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ Packaging
> > > > > :maxdepth: 1
> > > > >
> > > > > package/index
> > > > > + package/devicetree
> > > > >
> > > > > Testing
> > > > > -------
> > > > > diff --git a/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 00000000000..d922d3f87ae
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
> > > > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Updating the devicetree
> > > > > +=======================
> > > > > +
> > > > > +U-Boot uses devicetree for runtime configuration and storing required blobs or
> > > > > +any other information it needs to operate. It is possible to update the
> > > > > +devicetree separately from actually building U-Boot. This provides a good degree
> > > > > +of control and flexibility for firmware that uses U-Boot in conjunction with
> > > > > +other project.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +There are many reasons why it is useful to modify the devicetree after building
> > > > > +it:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +- Configuration can be changed, e.g. which UART to use
> > > > > +- A serial number can be added
> > > > > +- Public keys can be added to allow image verification
> > > > > +- Console output can be changed (e.g. to select serial or vidconsole)
> > > > > +
> > > > > +This section describes how to work with devicetree to accomplish your goals.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +See also :doc:`../devicetree/control` for a basic summary of the available
> > > > > +features.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Devicetree source
> > > > > +-----------------
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Every board in U-Boot must include a devicetree sufficient to build and boot
> > > > > +that board on suitable hardware (or emulation). This is specified using the
> > > > > +`CONFIG DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` option.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Current situation (August 2021)
> > > > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > +
> > > > > +As an aside, at present U-Boot allows `CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` to be empty,
> > > > > +e.g. if `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` or `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` are used. This has
> > > > > +unfortunately created an enormous amount of confusion and some wasted effort.
> > > > > +This was not intended and this bug will be fixed soon.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Some of the problems created are:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +- It is not obvious that the devicetree is coming from another project
> > > > > +
> > > > > +- There is no way to see even a sample devicetree for these platform in U-Boot,
> > > > > + so it is hard to know what is going on, e.g. which devices are typically
> > > > > + present
> > > > > +
> > > > > +- The other project may not provide a way to support U-Boot's requirements for
> > > > > + devicetree, such as the /config node. Note: On the U-Boot mailing linst, this
> > > > > + was only discovered after weeks of discussion and confusion
> > > > > +
> > > > > +- For QEMU specifically, consulting two QEMU source files is required, for which
> > > > > + there are no references in U-Boot documentation. The code is generating a
> > > > > + devicetree, but it is not clear what controls affect this generation.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Specifically on the changes in U-Boot:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +- `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` was added in rpi_patch_ for Raspberry Pi, which does have
> > > > > + an in-tree devicetree, but this feature has since been used for boards that
> > > > > + don't
> > > > > +- `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` was added in bcm_patch_ as part of a larger Broadcom
> > > > > + change with a tag indicating it only affected one board, so the change in
> > > > > + behaviour was not noticed at the time. It has since been used by RISC-V qemu
> > > > > + boards.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +Once this bug is fixed, CONFIG_OF_BOARD and CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE will override
> > > > > +(at runtime) the devicetree suppled with U-Boot, but will otherwise use
> > > > > +CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE for the in-tree build. So these two will become options,
> > > > > +moving out of the 'choice' in `dts/Kconfig`.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +This means that there is a basic devicetree build in the U-Boot tree, for
> > > > > +build-testing, consistency and documentation purposes, but at runtime U-Boot can
> > > > > +accept its devicetree from another source.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +To be clear, while U-Boot has its own copy of the devicetree source for each
> > > > > +board, this must match the Linux source, perhaps with some u-boot.dtsi
> > > > > +additions. The intent here is not to create a separate binding, just to provide
> > > > > +a representative devicetree in U-Boot.
> > > >
> > > > For many boards we lag far behind Linux' device-tree.
> > >
> > > Which is a huge problem that needs to be fixed. The intention has never
> > > been to "commit and forget".
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > > +it. For example ARM's Trusted Firmware A (`TF-A`_) may have a devicetree that it
> > > > > +passes to U-Boot. This overrides any devicetree build by U-Boot. When packaging
> > > > > +the firmware, the U-Boot devicetree may in fact be left out if it can be
> > > > > +guaranteed that it will receive one from another project.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +In this case, the devicetree in the other project must track U-Boot's use of
> > > > > +device tree, for the following reasons:
> > > >
> > > > Currently it is Linux that sets the standards not U-Boot.
> > >
> > > Well no, Linux isn't supposed to set "the standard" here either. It's
> > > OS-agnostic.
> > >
> > > > U-Boot can apply an overlay to the devicetree provided by the prior boot
> > > > stage. We should not try to force any U-Boot specific stuff onto other
> > > > projects.
> > >
> > > We should, when applicable, submit our bindings upstream just like any
> > > other project. We also want to make sure that when we do so, we hold
> > > ourselves to a high standard.
> >
> > What would you consider upstream for compatible( "u-boot,*" )?
>
> As I believe Simon is the main author of most of them, I'll let him
> chime in here as well. But I suspect things like "u-boot,bootcount*"
> are a good example of something to polish and push upstream.
I was the author of some of them but I haven't counted. I tried to
document all of the things I could find. I actually wonder if we
should have a 'u-boot,config' node and then have properties without
the 'u-boot,' prefix, to reduce the size.
>
> In the same vein as to how mtd partitions are valid in device trees, our
> binding for where environment is stored on MMC is likely another
> candidate.
>
> > Even if we upstream the binding to some global list of binding I think
> > U-Boot still should provide an overlay with this content.
What is an overlay? Do you mean the u-boot.dtsi files we already have,
or a separate repo, or a subdir in the linux dts dirs, or a devicetree
.dto file, or something else? Once I understand what you are asking
for I might have an opinion, but I went through most of it in the
patch.
>
> Depending if we have stuff that both we need and can't reasonably
> suggest moving upstream, sure.
Regards,
Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage
2021-08-30 14:48 ` Tom Rini
2021-08-30 15:14 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
@ 2021-09-03 8:53 ` Simon Glass
2021-09-10 14:00 ` Tom Rini
1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2021-09-03 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini
Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt, Ilias Apalodimas, Mark Kettenis,
Sean Anderson, Bin Meng, U-Boot Mailing List
Hi,
On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 08:48, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:30:55PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/28/21 6:46 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > At present some of the ideas and techniques behind devicetree in U-Boot
> > > are assumed, implied or unsaid. Add some documentation to cover how
> > > devicetree is build, how it can be modified and the rules about using
> > > the various CONFIG_OF_... options.
>
> I feel like I should emphasize that this is "document what we have
> today" at least as much, if not more-so, than "document what we want to
> move to tomorrow".
>
> In that this highlights some design disagreements that need to be
> settled, good. But lets perhaps start separate threads on those areas?
Yes, my intent was to do document what is there today. That was
Heinrich's request before applying the revert.
Except that as I mention at the top, the QEMU business needs sorting
out soon as it is perverting things in various strange ways and has
sent EFI done another blind alley (the first was supporting non-DM
code).
Actually it seems that even this patch has produced some confusion so
clearly some don't even see the status quo in the same way.
[..]
> > > +
> > > +This means that there is a basic devicetree build in the U-Boot tree, for
> > > +build-testing, consistency and documentation purposes, but at runtime U-Boot can
> > > +accept its devicetree from another source.
> > > +
> > > +To be clear, while U-Boot has its own copy of the devicetree source for each
> > > +board, this must match the Linux source, perhaps with some u-boot.dtsi
> > > +additions. The intent here is not to create a separate binding, just to provide
> > > +a representative devicetree in U-Boot.
> >
> > For many boards we lag far behind Linux' device-tree.
>
> Which is a huge problem that needs to be fixed. The intention has never
> been to "commit and forget".
Exactly. Heinrich, surely you are not suggesting that we should ignore this?
>
> [snip]
> > > +it. For example ARM's Trusted Firmware A (`TF-A`_) may have a devicetree that it
> > > +passes to U-Boot. This overrides any devicetree build by U-Boot. When packaging
> > > +the firmware, the U-Boot devicetree may in fact be left out if it can be
> > > +guaranteed that it will receive one from another project.
> > > +
> > > +In this case, the devicetree in the other project must track U-Boot's use of
> > > +device tree, for the following reasons:
> >
> > Currently it is Linux that sets the standards not U-Boot.
>
> Well no, Linux isn't supposed to set "the standard" here either. It's
> OS-agnostic.
Right.
>
> > U-Boot can apply an overlay to the devicetree provided by the prior boot
> > stage. We should not try to force any U-Boot specific stuff onto other
> > projects.
>
> We should, when applicable, submit our bindings upstream just like any
> other project. We also want to make sure that when we do so, we hold
> ourselves to a high standard.
I wonder if should just try just try that again, just to see what
happens. I vaguely remember the UART clock thing from many years ago,
being told that we should just probe the whole clock driver and then
have a debug UART...
But it really isn't up to Linux to refuse to accept U-Boot bindings,
IMO. U-Boot has much right to u-boot, as Linux does to linux,
>
> > > +- U-Boot only has one devicetree. See `Why not have two devicetrees?`_.
> > > +- For a consistent firmware build, decisions made in early stages should be
> > > + communicated to later ones at runtime. For example, if the serial console is
> > > + enabled in an early stage, it should be enabled in U-Boot too.
> > > +- U-Boot is quite capable of managing its own copy of the devicetree. If
> > > + another project wants to bypass this (often for good reason), it is reasonable
> > > + that it should take on the (fairly small) requirements that U-Boot features
> > > + that rely on devicetree are still available
> > > +- The point here is not that *U-Boot needs this extra node*, or *U-Boot needs
> > > + to have this public key*. These features are present in U-Boot in service of
> > > + the entire firmware system. If the U-Boot features are used, but cannot be
> > > + supported in the normal way, then there is pressure to implement these
> > > + features in other ways. In the end, we would have a different mechanism for
> > > + every other project that uses U-Boot. This introduces duplicate ways of doing
> > > + the same thing, needlessly increases the complexity of the U-Boot source code,
> > > + forces authors to consider parallel implementations when writing new features,
> > > + makes U-Boot harder to test, complicates documentation and confuses the
> > > + runtime flow of U-Boot. If every board did things its own way rather than
> > > + contributing to the common code, U-Boot would lose a lot of its cross-platform
> > > + value.
> >
> > This paragraph is incomprehensible for me.
> >
> > If both the prior boot stage and U-Boot comply to the standards set by
> > Linux we are fine. Any U-Boot quirks should be kept out of other projects.
>
> It's not the "Linux" device tree. It's the device tree for the system.
Yes, the whole system, and U-Boot is an important part of it.
Regards,
Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage
2021-09-03 8:53 ` Simon Glass
@ 2021-09-10 14:00 ` Tom Rini
2021-10-22 3:05 ` Simon Glass
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2021-09-10 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Glass
Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt, Ilias Apalodimas, Mark Kettenis,
Sean Anderson, Bin Meng, U-Boot Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1098 bytes --]
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:53:46AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 08:48, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > We should, when applicable, submit our bindings upstream just like any
> > other project. We also want to make sure that when we do so, we hold
> > ourselves to a high standard.
>
> I wonder if should just try just try that again, just to see what
> happens. I vaguely remember the UART clock thing from many years ago,
> being told that we should just probe the whole clock driver and then
> have a debug UART...
>
> But it really isn't up to Linux to refuse to accept U-Boot bindings,
> IMO. U-Boot has much right to u-boot, as Linux does to linux,
A bit late, but yes, between then and now I believe things have changed
and there is a more broad acceptance that just because the primary
repository for device trees and bindings is the linux kernel does not
mean that only the linux kernel needs to be considered. So we really do
need to pick something, polish it up, and then subject ourselves to
review.
--
Tom
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage
2021-09-10 14:00 ` Tom Rini
@ 2021-10-22 3:05 ` Simon Glass
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2021-10-22 3:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini
Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt, Ilias Apalodimas, Mark Kettenis,
Sean Anderson, Bin Meng, U-Boot Mailing List
Hi Tom,
On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 08:00, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 02:53:46AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 08:48, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > We should, when applicable, submit our bindings upstream just like any
> > > other project. We also want to make sure that when we do so, we hold
> > > ourselves to a high standard.
> >
> > I wonder if should just try just try that again, just to see what
> > happens. I vaguely remember the UART clock thing from many years ago,
> > being told that we should just probe the whole clock driver and then
> > have a debug UART...
> >
> > But it really isn't up to Linux to refuse to accept U-Boot bindings,
> > IMO. U-Boot has much right to u-boot, as Linux does to linux,
>
> A bit late, but yes, between then and now I believe things have changed
> and there is a more broad acceptance that just because the primary
> repository for device trees and bindings is the linux kernel does not
> mean that only the linux kernel needs to be considered. So we really do
> need to pick something, polish it up, and then subject ourselves to
> review.
I sent a patch and this is under discussion now:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/20211012074608.v2.1.I7733f5a849476e908cc51f0c71b8a594337fbbdf@changeid/
Regards,
Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage
2021-08-28 16:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] RFC: doc: Add documentation about devicetree usage Simon Glass
2021-08-30 12:46 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-08-30 14:30 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
@ 2021-08-30 14:53 ` Marcel Ziswiler
2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Marcel Ziswiler @ 2021-08-30 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sjg, u-boot
Cc: trini, xypron.glpk, ilias.apalodimas, seanga2, mark.kettenis, bmeng.cn
On Sat, 2021-08-28 at 10:46 -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> At present some of the ideas and techniques behind devicetree in U-Boot
> are assumed, implied or unsaid. Add some documentation to cover how
> devicetree is build, how it can be modified and the rules about using
> the various CONFIG_OF_... options.
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Fix typos per Sean (thank you!) and a few others
> - Add a 'Use of U-Boot /config node' section
> - Drop mention of dm-verity since that actually uses the kernel cmdline
> - Explain that OF_BOARD will still work after these changes (in
> 'Once this bug is fixed...' paragraph)
> - Expand a bit on the reason why the 'Current situation' is bad
> - Clarify in a second place that Linux and U-Boot use the same devicetree
> in 'To be clear, while U-Boot...'
> - Expand on why we should have rules for other projects in
> 'Devicetree in another project'
> - Add a comment as to why devicetree in U-Boot is not 'bad design'
> - Reword 'in-tree U-Boot devicetree' to 'devicetree source in U-Boot'
> - Rewrite 'Devicetree generated on-the-fly in another project' to cover
> points raised on v1
> - Add 'Why does U-Boot have its nodes and properties?'
> - Add 'Why not have two devicetrees?'
>
> doc/develop/index.rst | 1 +
> doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst | 563 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> doc/develop/package/index.rst | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 565 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
>
> diff --git a/doc/develop/index.rst b/doc/develop/index.rst
> index 83c929babda..d5ad8f9fe53 100644
> --- a/doc/develop/index.rst
> +++ b/doc/develop/index.rst
> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ Packaging
> :maxdepth: 1
>
> package/index
> + package/devicetree
>
> Testing
> -------
> diff --git a/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..d922d3f87ae
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/doc/develop/package/devicetree.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> +
> +Updating the devicetree
> +=======================
> +
> +U-Boot uses devicetree for runtime configuration and storing required blobs or
> +any other information it needs to operate. It is possible to update the
> +devicetree separately from actually building U-Boot. This provides a good degree
> +of control and flexibility for firmware that uses U-Boot in conjunction with
> +other project.
> +
> +There are many reasons why it is useful to modify the devicetree after building
> +it:
> +
> +- Configuration can be changed, e.g. which UART to use
> +- A serial number can be added
> +- Public keys can be added to allow image verification
> +- Console output can be changed (e.g. to select serial or vidconsole)
> +
> +This section describes how to work with devicetree to accomplish your goals.
> +
> +See also :doc:`../devicetree/control` for a basic summary of the available
> +features.
> +
> +
> +Devicetree source
> +-----------------
> +
> +Every board in U-Boot must include a devicetree sufficient to build and boot
> +that board on suitable hardware (or emulation). This is specified using the
> +`CONFIG DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` option.
> +
> +
> +Current situation (August 2021)
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +As an aside, at present U-Boot allows `CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE` to be empty,
> +e.g. if `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` or `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` are used. This has
> +unfortunately created an enormous amount of confusion and some wasted effort.
> +This was not intended and this bug will be fixed soon.
> +
> +Some of the problems created are:
> +
> +- It is not obvious that the devicetree is coming from another project
> +
> +- There is no way to see even a sample devicetree for these platform in U-Boot,
> + so it is hard to know what is going on, e.g. which devices are typically
> + present
> +
> +- The other project may not provide a way to support U-Boot's requirements for
> + devicetree, such as the /config node. Note: On the U-Boot mailing linst
list
> , this
> + was only discovered after weeks of discussion and confusion
> +
> +- For QEMU specifically, consulting two QEMU source files is required, for which
> + there are no references in U-Boot documentation. The code is generating a
> + devicetree, but it is not clear what controls affect this generation.
> +
> +Specifically on the changes in U-Boot:
> +
> +- `CONFIG_OF_BOARD` was added in rpi_patch_ for Raspberry Pi, which does have
> + an in-tree devicetree, but this feature has since been used for boards that
> + don't
> +- `CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE` was added in bcm_patch_ as part of a larger Broadcom
> + change with a tag indicating it only affected one board, so the change in
> + behaviour was not noticed at the time. It has since been used by RISC-V qemu
> + boards.
> +
> +Once this bug is fixed, CONFIG_OF_BOARD and CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE will override
> +(at runtime) the devicetree suppled with U-Boot, but will otherwise use
> +CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE for the in-tree build. So these two will become options,
> +moving out of the 'choice' in `dts/Kconfig`.
> +
> +This means that there is a basic devicetree build in the U-Boot tree, for
> +build-testing, consistency and documentation purposes, but at runtime U-Boot can
> +accept its devicetree from another source.
> +
> +To be clear, while U-Boot has its own copy of the devicetree source for each
> +board, this must match the Linux source, perhaps with some u-boot.dtsi
> +additions. The intent here is not to create a separate binding, just to provide
> +a representative devicetree in U-Boot.
> +
> +Offending boards are:
> +
> +- bcm7260
> +- bcm7445
> +- qemu_arm64
> +- qemu_arm
> +- qemu-ppce500
> +- qemu-riscv32
> +- qemu-riscv32_smode
> +- qemu-riscv64
> +- qemu-riscv64_smode
> +
> +All of these need to have a devicetree added in-tree. This is targeted to be
> +fixed in the 2022.01 release.
> +
> +
> +Building the devicetree
> +-----------------------
> +
> +U-Boot automatically builds the devicetree for a board, from the
> +`arch/<arch>/dts` directory. The Makefile in those directories has rules for
> +building devicetree files. It is preferable to avoid target-specific rules in
> +those files: i.e. all boards for a particular SoC should be built at once,
> +where practical. Apart from simplifying the Makefile, this helps to efficiently
> +(and immediately) ensure that changes in one board's DT do not break others that
> +are related. Building devicetrees is fast, so performance is seldom a concern
> +here.
> +
> +
> +Overriding the default devicetree
> +---------------------------------
> +
> +When building U-Boot, the `DEVICE_TREE` environment variable allows the
> +default devicetree file to be overridden at build time. This can be useful if
> +modifications have to be made to the in-tree devicetree file, for the benefit
> +of a downstream build system. Note that the in-tree devicetree must be
> +sufficient to build and boot, so this is not a way to bypass that requirement.
> +
> +
> +Modifying the devicetree after building
> +---------------------------------------
> +
> +While it is generally painful and hacky to modify the code or rodata of a
> +program after it is built, in many cases it is useful to do so, e.g. to add
> +configuration information like serial numbers, enabling/disabling features, etc.
> +
> +Devicetree provides a very nice solution to these problems since it is
> +structured data and it is relatively easy to change it, even in binary form
> +(see fdtput).
> +
> +U-Boot takes care that the devicetree is easily accessible after the build
> +process. In fact it is placed in a separate file called `u-boot.dtb`. If the
> +build system wants to modify or replace that file, it can do so. Then all that
> +is needed is to run `binman update` to update the file inside the image. If
> +binman is not used, then `u-boot-nodtb.bin` and the new `u-boot.dtb` can simply
> +be concatenated to achieve the desired result. U-Boot happily copes with the
> +devicetree growing or shrinking.
> +
> +The `u-boot.bin` image contains both pieces. While it is possible to locate the
> +devicetree within the image using the signature at the start of the file, this
> +is a bit messy.
> +
> +This is why `CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE` should always be used when building U-Boot.
> +The `CONFIG_OF_EMBED` option embeds the devicetree somewhere in the U-Boot ELF
> +image as rodata, meaning that it is hard to find it and it cannot increase in
> +size.
> +
> +When modifying the devicetree, the different cases to consider are as follows:
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE
> + This is easy, described above. Just change, replace or rebuild the
> + devicetree so it suits your needs, then rerun binman or redo the `cat`
> + operation to join `u-boot-nodtb.bin` and the new `u-boot.dtb`
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_EMBED
> + This is tricky, since the devicetree cannot easily be located. If the EFL
ELF
> + file is available, then the _dtb_dt_begin and __dtb_dt_end symbols can be
> + examined to find it. While it is possible to contract the file, it is not
> + possible to expand the file since that would involve re-linking
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE
> + In this case the devicetree must be modified in the project which provides
> + it, as described below
> +
> +- CONFIG_OF_BOARD
> + This is a board-specific situation, so needs to be considered on a
> + case-by-case base. The devicetree must be modified so that the correct
> + one is provided to U-Boot. How this is done depends entirely on the
> + implementation of this option for the board. It might require injecting the
> + changes into a different project somehow using tooling available there, or
> + it might involve merging an overlay file at runtime to obtain the desired
> + result.
> +
> +
> +Use of U-Boot /config node
> +--------------------------
> +
> +A common problem with firmware is that many builds are needed to deal with the
> +slight variations between different, related models. For example, one model may
> +have a TPM and another may not. Devicetree provides an excellent solution to
> +this problem, in that the devicetree to actually use on a platform can be
> +injected in the factory based on which model is being manufactured at the time.
> +
> +A related problem causing build proliferation is dealing with the differences
> +between development firmware, developer-friendly firmware (e.g. with all
> +security features present but with the ability to access the command line),
> +test firmware (which runs tests used in the factory), final production firmware
> +(before signing), signed firmware (where the signatures have been inserted) and
> +the like. Ideally all or most of these should use the same U-Boot build, with
> +just some options to determine the features available. For example, being able
> +to control whether the UART console or JTAG are available, on any image, is a
> +great debugging aid.
> +
> +When the firmware consists of multiple parts, it is helpful that all operate
> +the same way at runtime, regardless of how they were built. This can be achieved
> +by passing the runtime configuration (e.g. 'enable UART console) along the chain
> +through each firmware stage. It is frustrating to have to replicate a bug on
> +production firmware which does happen on developer firmware, because they are
> +completely different builds.
> +
> +The /config node provides useful functionality for this. It allows the different
> +controls to be 'factored out' of the U-Boot binary, so they can be controlled
> +separately from the initial source-code build. The node can be easily updated by
> +a build or factory tool and can control various features in U-Boot. It is
> +similar in concept to a Kconfig option, except that it can be changed after
> +U-Boot is built.
> +
> +The /config node is similar in concept to the `/chosen node`_ except that it is
> +for passing information *into* firmware instead of from firmware to the
> +Operating System. Also, while Linux has a (sometimes extremely long) command
> +line, U-Boot does not support this. The devicetree provides a more structured
> +approach in any case.
> +
> +
> +Devicetree in another project
> +-----------------------------
> +
> +In some cases U-Boot receive its devicetree at runtime from a program that calls
> +it. For example ARM's Trusted Firmware A (`TF-A`_) may have a devicetree that it
> +passes to U-Boot. This overrides any devicetree build by U-Boot. When packaging
> +the firmware, the U-Boot devicetree may in fact be left out if it can be
> +guaranteed that it will receive one from another project.
> +
> +In this case, the devicetree in the other project must track U-Boot's use of
> +device tree, for the following reasons:
> +
> +- U-Boot only has one devicetree. See `Why not have two devicetrees?`_.
> +- For a consistent firmware build, decisions made in early stages should be
> + communicated to later ones at runtime. For example, if the serial console is
> + enabled in an early stage, it should be enabled in U-Boot too.
> +- U-Boot is quite capable of managing its own copy of the devicetree. If
> + another project wants to bypass this (often for good reason), it is reasonable
> + that it should take on the (fairly small) requirements that U-Boot features
> + that rely on devicetree are still available
> +- The point here is not that *U-Boot needs this extra node*, or *U-Boot needs
> + to have this public key*. These features are present in U-Boot in service of
> + the entire firmware system. If the U-Boot features are used, but cannot be
> + supported in the normal way, then there is pressure to implement these
> + features in other ways. In the end, we would have a different mechanism for
> + every other project that uses U-Boot. This introduces duplicate ways of doing
> + the same thing, needlessly increases the complexity of the U-Boot source code,
> + forces authors to consider parallel implementations when writing new features,
> + makes U-Boot harder to test, complicates documentation and confuses the
> + runtime flow of U-Boot. If every board did things its own way rather than
> + contributing to the common code, U-Boot would lose a lot of its cross-platform
> + value.
> +
> +The above does not indicate *bad design* within U-Boot. Devicetree is a core
> +component of U-Boot and U-Boot makes use of it to the full. It solves a myriad
> +of problems that would otherwise need their own special C struct, binary format,
> +special property, tooling for viewing and updating, etc.
> +
> +Specifically, the other project must provide a way to add configuration and
> +other information to the devicetree for use by U-Boot, such as the /config node.
> +Note that the U-Boot in-tree devicetree source must be sufficient to build and
> +boot, so this is not a way to bypass that requirement.
> +
> +If binman is used, the devicetree source in U-Boot must contain the binman
> +definition so that a valid image can be build. This helps people discover what
> +other firmware components are needed and seek out appropriate documentation.
> +
> +If verified boot is used, the project must provide a way to inject a public key,
> +certificate or other material into the U-Boot devicetree so that it is available
> +to U-Boot at runtime. See `Signing with U-Boot devicetree`_. This may be
> +through tooling in the project itself or by making use of U-Boot's tooling.
> +
> +
> +Devicetree generated on-the-fly in another project
> +--------------------------------------------------
> +
> +In some rare cases, another project may wish to create a devicetree for U-Boot
> +entirely on-the-fly, then pass it to U-Boot at runtime. The only known example
> +of this at the time of writing (2021) is qemu, for ARM (`QEMU ARM`_) and
> +RISC-V (`QEMU RISC-V`_).
> +
> +In effect, when the board boots, U-Boot is *downstream* of the other project.
> +It is entirely reliant on that project for its correct operation.
> +
> +This does not mean to imply that the other project is creating its own,
> +incompatible devicetree. In fact QEMU generates a valid devicetree which is
> +suitable for both U-Boot and Linux. It is quite normal for a devicetree to be
> +present in flash and be made available to U-Boot at runtime. What matters is
> +where the devicetree comes from. If the other project builds a devicetree for
> +U-Boot then it needs to support adding the things needed by U-Boot features.
> +Without them, for example:
> +
> +- U-Boot may not boot because too many devices are enabled before relocation
> +- U-Boot may not have access to the developer or production public keys used for
> + signing
> +- U-Boot may not support controlling whether the console is enabled
> +- U-Boot may not be know which MMC device to boot from
> +- U-Boot may not be able to find other firmware components that it needs to load
> +
> +Normally, supporting U-Boot's features is trivial, since the devicetree compiler
> +(dtc) can compile the source, including any U-Boot pieces. So the burden is
> +extremely low.
> +
> +In this case, the devicetree in the other project must track U-Boot's use of
> +device tree, so that it remains compatible. See `Devicetree in another project`_
> +for reasons why.
> +
> +If a particular version of the project is needed for a particular version of
> +U-Boot, that must be documented in both projects.
> +
> +Further, it must provide a way to add configuration and other information to
> +the devicetree for use by U-Boot, such as the `/config` node and the tags used
> +by driver model. Note that the U-Boot in-tree devicetree must be sufficient to
> +build and boot, so this is not a way to bypass that requirement.
> +
> +More specifically, tooling or command-line arguments must provide a way to
> +add a `/config` node or items within that node, so that U-Boot can receive a
> +suitable configuration. It must provide a way of adding `u-boot,dm-...` tags for
> +correct operation of driver model. These options can then be used as part of the
> +build process, which puts the firmware image together. For binman, a way must be
> +provided to add the binman definition into the devicetree in the same way.
> +
> +One way to do this is to allow a .dtsi file to be merged in with the generated
> +devicetree.
> +
> +Note that the burden goes both ways. If a new feature is added to U-Boot which
> +needs support in another project, then the author of the U-Boot patch must add
> +any required support to the other project.
> +
> +
> +Passing the devicetree through to Linux
> +---------------------------------------
> +
> +Ideally U-Boot and Linux use the same devicetree source, even though it is
> +hosted in separate projects. U-Boot adds some extra pieces, such as the
> +`config/` node and tags like `u-boot,dm-spl`. Linux adds some extra pieces, such
> +as `linux,default-trigger` and `linux,code`. This should not interfere with
> +each other.
> +
> +In principle it is possible for U-Boot's control devicetree to be passed to
> +Linux. This is, after all, one of the goals of devicetree and the original
> +Open Firmware project, to have the firmware provide the hardware description to
> +the Operating System.
> +
> +For boards where this approach is used, care must be taken. U-Boot typically
> +needs to 'fix up' the devicetree before passing it to Linux, e.g. to add
> +information about the memory map, about which serial console is used, provide
> +the kernel address space layout randomization (KASLR) seed or select whether the
> +console should be silenced for a faster boot.
> +
> +Fix-ups involve modifying the devicetree. If the control devicetree is used,
> +that means the control devicetree could be modified, while U-Boot is using it.
> +Removing a device and reinserting it can cause problems if the devicetree offset
> +has changed, for example, since the device will be unable to locates its
> +devicetree properties at the expected devicetree offset, which is a fixed
> +integer.
> +
> +To deal with this, it is recommended to employ one or more of the following
> +approaches:
> +
> +- Make a copy of the devicetree and 'fix up' the copy, leaving the control
> + devicetree alone
> +- Enable `CONFIG_OF_LIVE` so that U-Boot makes its own copy of the devicetree
> + during relocation; fixups then happen on the original flat tree
> +- Ensure that fix-ups happen after all loading has happened and U-Boot has
> + completed image verification
> +
> +In practice,the last point is typically observed, since boot_prep_linux() is
> +called just before jumping to Linux, long after signature verification, for
> +example. But it is important to make sure that this line is not blurred,
> +particularly if untrusted user data is involved.
> +
> +
> +Devicetree use cases that must be supported
> +-------------------------------------------
> +
> +Regardless of how the devicetree is provided to U-Boot at runtime, various
> +U-Boot features must be fully supported. This section describes some of these
> +features and the implications for other projects.
> +
> +If U-Boot uses its own in-tree devicetree these features are supported
> +automatically.
> +
> +
> +Signing with U-Boot devicetree
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +U-Boot supports signing a payload so that it can be verified to have been
> +created by a party owning a private key. This is called verified boot in U-Boot
> +(see doc/uImage.FIT/verified-boot.txt).
> +
> +Typically this works by creating a FIT and then running the `mkimage` tool to
> +add signatures for particular images. As part of this process, `mkimage` writes
> +a public key to the U-Boot devicetree, although this can be done separately.
> +See fdt_add_pubkey_ for patches for a suitable tool, for example.
> +
> +As with all configuration information, if another project is providing the
> +devicetree to U-Boot, it must provide a way to add this public key into the
> +devicetree it passes to U-Boot. This could be via a tooling option, making use
> +of `mkimage`, or allowing a .dtsi file to be merged in with what is generated in
> +the other project.
> +
> +
> +Providing the binman image definition
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +In complex systems U-Boot must locate and make use of other firmware components,
> +such as images for the user interface, files containing peripheral firmware,
> +multiple copies of U-Boot for use with A/B boot, etc. U-Boot uses
> +:doc:`Binman <binman>` as a standard way of putting an image together.
> +
> +Typically this works by running binman with the devicetree as an input, to
> +create the file image. Binman then outputs an updated devicetree which is
> +packed in the firmware image, so U-Boot can access the binman definition and
> +locate all the components.
> +
> +As with all configuration information, if another project is providing the
> +devicetree to U-Boot, it must provide a way to add this binman definition into
> +the devicetree it passes to U-Boot. This could be via a tooling option, making
> +use of `binman`, or alowing a .dtsi file to be merged in with what is generated
> +in the other project.
> +
> +
> +Protecting the devicetree
> +-------------------------
> +
> +U-Boot relies heavily on devicetree for correct operation. A corrupt or invalid
> +device can cause U-Boot to fail to start, behave incorrectly, crash (e.g. if
> +`CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_ASSUME_MASK` is adjusted, or fail to boot an Operating System.
> +Within U-Boot, the devicetree is as important as any other part of the source
> +code. At ruuntime, the devicetree can be considered to be structured rodata.
> +
> +With secure systems, care must be taken that the devicetree is valid:
> +
> +- If the code / rodata has a hash or signature, the devicetree should also, if
> + they are packaged separately.
> +- If the code / rodata is write-protected when running, the devicetree should be
> + also. Note that U-Boot relocates its code and devicetree, so this is not as
> + simple as it sounds. U-Boot must write-protect these items after relocating.
> +
> +
> +Why does U-Boot have its nodes and properties?
> +----------------------------------------------
> +
> +See also :doc:`../devicetree/intro`.
> +
> +There has been pushback at the concept that U-Boot dares have its own nodes and
> +properties in the devicetree.
> +
> +Apart from these nodes and properties, U-Boot uses the same bindings as Linux.
> +A `u-boot.dtsi` file helps to keep U-Boot-specific changes in separate files,
> +making it easier to keep devicetree source files in U-Boot in sync with Linux.
> +
> +As a counter-example, the Zephyr OS project takes a different approach. It uses
> +entirely different bindings, in general, making no effort to sync devicetree
> +source files with Linux. U-Boot strives to be compatible with Linux in a number
> +of ways, such as source code style and common APIs, to aid porting of code
> +between the projects. Devicetree is another way where U-Boot and Linux follow a
> +similar approach.
> +
> +Fundamentally, the idea that U-Boot cannot have its own tags flies in the face
> +of the devicetree specification (see dtspec_), which says:
> +
> + Nonstandard property names should specify a **unique string prefix**, such as
> + a stock ticker symbol, identifying the name of the company **or organization**
> + that defined the property. Examples:
> +
> + - fsl,channel-fifo-len
> + - ibm,ppc-interrupt-server#s
> + - **linux**,network-index
> +
> +It is also fundamentally unbalanced. Linux has many tags of its own (some 36 in
> +version 5.13) and at least one Linux-specific node, even if you ignore things
> +like flash partitions which clearly provide configuration information to Linux.
> +
> +Practically speaking there are many reasons why U-Boot has its own nodes and
> +properties. Some examples:
> +
> +- Binding every device before relocation even if it won't be used, consumes time
> + and memory: tags on each node can specify which are needed in SPL or before
> + relocation. Linux has no such constraints.
> +
> +- Requiring the full clock tree to be up and running just to get the debug UART
> + running is inefficient. It is also and self-defeating,
Either something before the and is missing or the and itself is superfluous.
> since if that much
> + code is working properly, you probably don't need the debug UART. A devicetree
> + property to provide the UART input-clock frequency is a simple solution.
> +
> +- U-Boot does not have a user space to provide policy and configuration. It
> + cannot do what Linux does and run programs and look up filesystems to figure
> + out how to boot.
> +
> +
> +Why not have two devicetrees?
> +-----------------------------
> +
> +Setting aside the argument for restricting U-Boot from having its own nodes and
> +properties, another idea proposed is to have two devicetrees, one for the
> +U-Boot-specific bits (here called `special`) and one for everything else (here
> +called `linux`).
> +
> +On the positive side, it might quieten the discussion alluded to in the section
> +above. But there are many negatives to consider and many open questions to
> +resolve.
> +
> +- **Bindings** - Presumably the special devicetree would have its own bindings.
> + It would not be necessary to put a `u-boot,` prefix on anything. People coming
> + across the devicetree source would wonder how it fits in with the Linux
> + devicetree.
> +
> +- **Access** - U-Boot has a nice `ofnode` API for accessing the devicetree. This
> + would need to be expanded to support two trees. Features which need to access
> + both (such as a device driver which reads the special devicetree to get some
> + configuration info) could become quite confusing to read and write.
> +
> +- **Merging** - Can the two devicetree be merged if a platform desires it? If
> + so, how is this managed in tooling? Does it happen during the build, in which
> + case they are not really separate at all. Or does U-Boot merge them at
> + runtime, in which case this adds time and memory?
> +
> +- **Efficiency** - A second device tree adds more code and more code paths. It
> + requires that both be made available to the code in U-Boot, e.g. via a
> + separate pointer or argument or API. Overall the separation would certainly
> + not speed up U-Boot, nor decrease its size.
> +
> +- **Source code** - At present `u-boot.dtsi` files provide the pieces needed for
> + U-Boot for a particular board. Would we use these same files for the special
> + devicetree?
> +
> +- **Complexity** - Two devicetrees complicates the build system since it must
> + build and package them both. Errors must be reported in such a way that it
> + is obvious which one is failing.
> +
> +- **Referencing each other** - The `u-boot,dm-xxx` tags used by driver model
> + are currently placed in the nodes they relate to. How would these tags
> + reference a node that is in a separate devicetree? What extra validation would
> + be needed?
> +
> +- **Storage** - How would the two devicetrees be stored in the image? At present
> + we simply concatenate the U-Boot binary and the devicetree. We could add the
> + special devicetree before the Linux one, so two are concatenated, but it is
> + not pretty. We could use binman to support more complex arrangements, but only
> + some boards use this at present, so it would be a big change.
> +
> +- **API** - How would another project provide two devicetree files to U-Boot at
> + runtime? Presumably this would just be too painful. But if it doesn't, it
> + would be unable to configure run-time features of U-Boot during the boot.
> +
> +- **Confusion** - No other project has two devicetrees. U-Boot would be in the
> + unfortunate position of having to describe this fact to new users, along with
> + the (arguably contrived) reason for the arrangement.
> +
> +- **Signing flow** - The current signing flow is simple as it involves running
> + `mkimage` with the U-Boot devicetree. This would have to be updated to use the
> + special devicetree. Some way of telling the user that they have done it wrong
> + would have to be invented.
> +
> +Overall, adding a second devicetree would create enormous confusion and
> +complexity. It seems a lot cheaper to solve this by a change of attitude.
> +
> +
> +.. _rpi_patch: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20170402082520.32546-1-deymo@google.com/
> +.. _bcm_patch:
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/16fc0901f4521d3c399eac950c52a634b2f9473b.1528485916.git.fitzsim@fitzsim.org/
> +.. _`TF-A`: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/tf-a
> +.. _`QEMU ARM`: https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/hw/arm/virt.c
> +.. _`QEMU RISC-V`: https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/hw/riscv/virt.c
> +.. _`/chosen node`: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/chosen.txt
> +.. _fdt_add_pubkey: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=157843&state=*
> +.. _dtspec: https://www.devicetree.org/specifications/
> diff --git a/doc/develop/package/index.rst b/doc/develop/package/index.rst
> index 9374be2e62c..188c376950e 100644
> --- a/doc/develop/package/index.rst
> +++ b/doc/develop/package/index.rst
> @@ -17,3 +17,4 @@ SPI flash.
> :maxdepth: 2
>
> binman
> + devicetree
Thanks for that write-up.
Reviewed-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread