Hi Tom,
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 14:46, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:43:49PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 14:06, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:12:27AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: [snip]
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 07:56, Michal Simek michal.simek@amd.com wrote:
On 2/6/23 15:44, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 01:22:48PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On 2/1/23 23:54, Simon Glass wrote: >> Update various build and test components to use the new schema. >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org >> --- >> >> (no changes since v1) >> >> drivers/core/ofnode.c | 10 +++++----- >> drivers/video/video-uclass.c | 4 ++-- >> dts/Kconfig | 2 +- >> include/dm/device.h | 2 +- >> include/dm/ofnode.h | 10 +++++----- >> scripts/Makefile.lib | 12 ++++++------ >> test/dm/test-fdt.c | 2 +- >> test/py/tests/test_ofplatdata.py | 8 ++++---- >> tools/binman/binman.rst | 3 +-- >> tools/dtoc/test_fdt.py | 8 ++++---- >> 10 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/core/ofnode.c b/drivers/core/ofnode.c >> index 4d56b1a7675..5249a60639b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/core/ofnode.c >> +++ b/drivers/core/ofnode.c >> @@ -1265,22 +1265,22 @@ bool ofnode_pre_reloc(ofnode node) >> { >> #if defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || defined(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) >> /* for SPL and TPL the remaining nodes after the fdtgrep 1st pass >> - * had property dm-pre-reloc or u-boot,dm-spl/tpl. >> + * had property bootph-all or bootph-pre-sram/bootph-pre-ram. >> * They are removed in final dtb (fdtgrep 2nd pass) >> */ >> return true; >> #else >> - if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-pre-reloc")) >> + if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-all")) >> return true; >> - if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-pre-proper")) >> + if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-some-ram")) >> return true; >> /* >> * In regular builds individual spl and tpl handling both >> * count as handled pre-relocation for later second init. >> */ >> - if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-spl") || >> - ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-tpl")) >> + if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-pre-ram") || >> + ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-pre-sram")) >> return true; > > Please correct me if I am wrong but this change will likely break all boards > which didn't migrate to this at this stage. And because targeting early > stages people will be without console. > I think we should have transition period for 1-2 releases to give people > enough time to migrate. It means print big warning that they have to migrate > their DTS.
What's the migration case here we're missing? Is it platforms that maintain a dts externally, via tooling / etc, that populate those nodes?
Yes and I expect there will be a lot of DTs around with some changes for specific products.
Also for example QEMU is also generating DT based on it's configuration and provide it to U-Boot. https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/blob/master/hw/arm/xlnx-versal-virt.c... When this patch is applied CI loop should fail for Versal.
I am not sure how it helps us to drag this out. It is a breaking change, but a drawn-out process is just going to create a lot of confusion. People should be free to use the schema in Linux .dts files from now on, but if it is not immediately supported in U-Boot then they cannot. This is the most important point, after all.
Now that we've had some of the external migration issues laid out, what would it look like to have some sort of backwards compatible hook here to fixup an older tree we've been passed?
We can't do it for SPL, since the processing happens at built time, but for U-Boot proper we can do something like what Michal suggests, although perhaps with a warning rather than an error. Likely the warning would have to be displayed later (if/when U-Boot starts up) since the console may be one of the problem nodes.
Right, if it's a build time thing, we should be able to ... something. Maybe a detect and rename for now, detect and fail in a bit. But
But we only have this problem with out-of-tree .dts files, so I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.
run-time, we can detect, fixup and warn later on? That seems like it might be reasonable.
Yes I think so.
Regards, Simon