Hi Rasmus,
On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 02:25, Rasmus Villemoes rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk wrote:
On 01/05/2023 18.32, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Rasmus,
On Mon, 1 May 2023 at 02:49, Rasmus Villemoes rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk wrote:
On 27/04/2023 19.31, Tom Rini wrote:
Well, I'm not sure there's a use case for building all of the extra device trees. I think what I'll do right now is fire off a CI run (or a few, in the event of problems) where we just use the logic of 3609e1dc5f4d and see what falls down.
So this gets us a few failures. You can see them on https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/jobs/618127 but one type of failure seems to be the case where CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE isn't contained in CONFIG_OF_LIST (ls1088aqds_tfa for example) and the other case is where CONFIG_OF_LIST != CONFIG_SPL_OF_LIST and this fails because fdtgrep runs NOT on spl/arch/.../foo.dtb but rather arch/.../foo.dtb and so we don't have the dtb file around.
Hm, the former sounds like a bug in the defconfig, the second sounds like a legit use case (or why would we have SPL_OF_LIST). Anyway, both should be fixable by just changing the logic of scripts/Makefile.dts a little; say add the union of DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE, OF_LIST and SPL_OF_LIST to dtb-y. Something like
diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.dts b/scripts/Makefile.dts index 2561025da8..5e2429c617 100644 --- a/scripts/Makefile.dts +++ b/scripts/Makefile.dts @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
-dtb-y += $(patsubst %,%.dtb,$(subst ",,$(CONFIG_$(SPL_)OF_LIST))) +dtb-y += $(patsubst %,%.dtb,$(subst ",,$(CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE) $(CONFIG_OF_LIST) $(CONFIG_SPL_OF_LIST)))
I think we should require that all the DTs in the list are already built using the standard rule.
i.e. Makefile.dts should just have a check that OF_LIST doesn't bring in anything new. If it does, then the build should fail.
I disagree.
IMO, having those enourmous lists is unmaintainable, and as I've pointed out, actively misleading because (like it or not), the result of building foo.dtb depends (or to be pedantically correct, _may depend_) on whether we're building foo_defconfig or bar_defconfig, despite both foo and bar being members of the same SOC family or vendor or however foo.dtb and bar.dtb have been categorized.
That's actually not how it is supposed to work, though.
The list is really about which ones should be put into the FIT. We shouldn't be putting in things that don't exist normally for that SoC.
Yes, and I'm not talking about changing any of _that_. I'm just saying: The board, in the form of the defconfig, already provides information on which dtbs can be relevant for any bootphase, so let's just build the union of those, _but nothing else_.
But then we end up with lots of TARGET rules. Plus the Makefile no-longer describes which DTs are built?? Perhaps I just misunderstand where you are heading.
Meanwhile I think we should move towards prohibiting CONFIG_TARGET_... in Makefile rules,
I think we can get rid of all of it, or perhaps with some exceptions for sandbox and the like. I mean, Tom's quick test didn't show that many problems from just nuking almost all of arch/*/dts/Makefile. since this is creating some of this problem. i.e.
we should do what Linux does.
I don't think so. Linux (and in general an OS kernel) is in a completely different situation than a bootloader. It's possible to build one kernel that will boot on many different boards with just an appropriate dtb being passed. A bootloader will always need to be built for the specific target (or for a very close family of targets); you can't really imagine building an imx_defconfig u-boot binary and expect that to run on all imx-boards.
Actually that's really not true, at least not as broadly as you have said it. The original purpose of bringing DT into U-Boot was to allow an exynos5 build to run on 3-4 different boards, just with the DT. As you have seen we have boards that provide an SPL_OF_LIST to deal with differences relevant to U-Boot. The DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE for a board is really just that. It should be possible to use a different DT with the same U-Boot binary and have it work on a different board (with the same SoC).
If you think about the implications of that, it means that we need to use compatible strings for board features, not #ifdefs and special C files.
What sort of things are ending up in the DT that make it build differently from other boards? Is it Kconfig options? I am aware of this on x86, since there is a common u-boot.dtsi for all boards.
We definitely take a risk by including Kconfig options in the DT, but I would hope that DT differences are in the board's .dts, not in shared .dtsi files.
That said, there's another thing "Linux does", at least right now for arm64 and soonish also for arm32, namely putting dts files in individual vendor directories. _That_ I'd really love to see happen in U-Boot as well, because it's not just the 1400 line Makefile that's unmaintanable, it's also the 2600+ files in one directory.
I never list the directory, but yes it would be great to move to how Linux does this too.
Regards, Simon