[trimmed CC list a bit as this is getting offtopic for the original thread]
On 05/03/2024 13:14, Sumit Garg wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 at 18:21, Caleb Connolly caleb.connolly@linaro.org wrote:
On 05/03/2024 12:35, Sumit Garg wrote:
Hi Caleb,
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 22:22, Caleb Connolly caleb.connolly@linaro.org wrote:
This adjusts OF_UPSTREAM to behave more like the kernel by allowing for all the devicetree files for a given vendor to be compiled. This is useful for Qualcomm in particular as most boards are supported by a single U-Boot build just provided with a different DT.
Signed-off-by: Caleb Connolly caleb.connolly@linaro.org
dts/Kconfig | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ scripts/Makefile.dts | 17 ++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dts/Kconfig b/dts/Kconfig index b9b6367154ef..67d9dc489856 100644 --- a/dts/Kconfig +++ b/dts/Kconfig @@ -100,8 +100,32 @@ config OF_UPSTREAM However, newer boards whose devicetree source files haven't landed in the dts/upstream subtree, they can override this option to have the DT build from existing U-Boot tree location instead.
+config OF_UPSTREAM_BUILD_VENDOR
bool "Build all devicetree files for a particular vendor"depends on OF_UPSTREAMhelpEnable building all devicetree files for a particular vendor. ThisDo we really want to build all the DTBs even if many of those aren't supported by U-Boot at all? I would have rather added Makefile targets for boards which really supports a single defconfig eg. qcom_defconfig.
Yes, for the 4 Qualcomm SoCs currently supported there are 51 dts targets that ought to be able to run U-Boot to some extent
Have you tested U-Boot on all of them? IMO, it would be good to make people aware about supported boards via listing their DTs at least.
Well the "ideal" goal is that every SoC in upstream is supported. All of the changes I've introduced so far work towards that end, so this is just another step in that direction. Obviously it's a lofty one, but I see no reason to intentionally make things harder for ourselves by gatekeeping what DTB files we build.
I have additional features planned that help here, and plenty more ideas... But I can confirm that most of the phones (which are pretty much identical to the reference boards) do indeed "just work" provided the SoC is supported.
It makes sense to use board/qualcomm/<soc-codename>/MAINTAINERS for this imo, there we can reference the specific dts files so device maintainers can be CC'd if there are relevant changes when deviceree-rebasing is updated.
I would like to update the Qualcomm docs to describe the general approach here and help guide new contributors. But (as is hopefully obvious by this email) I'm still very much learning as I go. What do you think?
$ ls -l dts/upstream/src/arm6/qcom/{msm8916,sdm845,msm8996,qcs404}*.dts\ | wc -l 51
qcom_defconfig currently only supports sdm845 and qcs404.
What do you mean by a "makefile target"? Like copying arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile from Linux? I guess my concern here would be keeping it in sync, and introducing additional busywork when porting.
See following diff:
diff --git a/dts/upstream/src/arm64/Makefile b/dts/upstream/src/arm64/Makefile index 9a8f6aa35846..ecc15021cb08 100644 --- a/dts/upstream/src/arm64/Makefile +++ b/dts/upstream/src/arm64/Makefile @@ -2,6 +2,10 @@
include $(srctree)/scripts/Makefile.dts
+dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SNAPDRAGON) += qcom/sdm845-db845c.dtb \
qcom/sdm845-samsung-starqltechn.dtb \qcom/qcs404-evb-4000.dtbtargets += $(dtb-y)
We do have a lot of Qualcomm DTS files, it takes maybe 10 seconds to compile them all on my machine, but that's only once. With incremental builds this becomes largely irrelevant.
Maybe someone cares about build time too but that's not my primary concern. We shouldn't be giving the false impression that all the DTs present in the vendor directory are supported by U-Boot.
-Sumit