On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 12:18:09PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 12:01, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > On 26.06.21 20:29, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 08:08, Tom Rini wrote: > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 07:14:21PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote: > > >>> Hi Tom, > > >>> > > >>> On 09/06/21 6:47 pm, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > >>>> On 07.06.21 13:44, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > >>>>> On 07.06.21 13:40, Tom Rini wrote: > > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 03:33:52PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote: > > >>>>>>> +Tom, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi Tom, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 02/06/21 3:07 pm, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > >>>>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> To avoid the need of extra boot scripting on AM65x for loading a > > >>>>>>>> watchdog firmware, add the required rproc init and loading logic for the > > >>>>>>>> first R5F core to the watchdog start handler. In case the R5F cluster is > > >>>>>>>> in lock-step mode, also initialize the second core. The firmware itself > > >>>>>>>> is embedded into U-Boot binary to ease access to it and ensure it is > > >>>>>>>> properly hashed in case of secure boot. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> One possible firmware source is https://github.com/siemens/k3-rti-wdt. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka > > >>>>>>>> --- > > >>>>>>>> drivers/watchdog/Kconfig | 20 ++++++++++++ > > >>>>>>>> drivers/watchdog/Makefile | 5 +++ > > >>>>>>>> drivers/watchdog/rti_wdt.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > >>>>>>>> drivers/watchdog/rti_wdt_fw.S | 20 ++++++++++++ > > >>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >>>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/watchdog/rti_wdt_fw.S > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig > > >>>>>>>> index f0ff2612a6..1a1fddfe9f 100644 > > >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig > > >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/Kconfig > > >>>>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,26 @@ config WDT_K3_RTI > > >>>>>>>> Say Y here if you want to include support for the K3 watchdog > > >>>>>>>> timer (RTI module) available in the K3 generation of processors. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> +if WDT_K3_RTI > > >>>>>>>> + > > >>>>>>>> +config WDT_K3_RTI_LOAD_FW > > >>>>>>>> + bool "Load watchdog firmware" > > >>>>>>>> + depends on REMOTEPROC > > >>>>>>>> + help > > >>>>>>>> + Automatically load the specified firmware image into the MCU R5F > > >>>>>>>> + core 0. On the AM65x, this firmware is supposed to handle the expiry > > >>>>>>>> + of the watchdog timer, typically by resetting the system. > > >>>>>>>> + > > >>>>>>>> +config WDT_K3_RTI_FW_FILE > > >>>>>>>> + string "Watchdog firmware image file" > > >>>>>>>> + default "k3-rti-wdt.fw" > > >>>>>>>> + depends on WDT_K3_RTI_LOAD_FW > > >>>>>>>> + help > > >>>>>>>> + Firmware image to be embedded into U-Boot and loaded on watchdog > > >>>>>>>> + start. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I need your input on this proach. Is it okay to include the linker file unders > > >>>>>>> drivers? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Maybe? I suppose the first thing that springs to mind is why aren't we > > >>>>>> using binman and including this blob (which I happily see is GPLv2) > > >>>>>> similar to how we do things with x86 for one example. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> See https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg377894.html > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Jan > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Did this help to answer open questions? Otherwise, please let me know. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'd also like to avoid that his patch alone blocks 1-3 of the series > > >>>> needless - but I would also not mind getting everything in at once. > > >>> > > >>> Can you provide your reviewed-by if you are okay with this approach? > > >> > > >> I was kind of hoping Simon would chime in here on binman usage. So, > > >> re-re-reading the above URL, yes, fsloader wouldn't be the right choice > > >> for watchdog firmware. But I think binman_entry_find() and related > > >> could work, in general, for this case of "need firmware blob embedded in > > >> to image". That said, this isn't just any firmware blob, it's the > > >> watchdog firmware. The less reliance on other things the safer it is. > > >> That means this would be an exception to the general firmware blob > > >> loading rule and yeah, OK, we can do it this way. Sorry for the delay. > > > > > > Yes I've been a little tied up recently. But I think this should use > > > binman. We really don't want to be building binary firmware into > > > U-Boot itself! > > > > > > Also Tom says, see x86 for a load of binaries of different types and > > > how they are accessed at runttime. This is what binman is for. > > > > > > > Please take the time and study my arguments. I'm open for better > > proposals, but they need to be concrete and addressing my points. > > Do you mean 'properly hashed' and 'easy access', or something else? > What can binman not do? Well, as I said when ack'ing this, we're also talking about making sure the system watchdog works. It needs to be as dead simple as possible. -- Tom