Hi Jan,
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 16:09, Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka@siemens.com wrote:
On 19.06.23 16:09, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Jan,
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 14:28, Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka@siemens.com wrote:
On 19.06.23 14:36, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Jan,
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 16:42, Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka@siemens.com wrote:
On 15.06.23 13:46, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 15.06.23 13:38, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 12:21, Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka@siemens.com wrote: >> >> On 15.06.23 13:19, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 12:09, Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka@siemens.com wrote: >>>> >>>> On 15.06.23 12:55, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> Hi Jan, >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 11:26, Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka@siemens.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12.06.23 23:17, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Jan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 15:39, Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka@siemens.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka@siemens.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Introduce BINMAN_EXTRA_ARGS that can be set per board, e.g., to inject >>>>>>>> specific settings. Will be used by IOT2050 first to define multiple >>>>>>>> of-lists. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka jan.kiszka@siemens.com >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> CC: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> Makefile | 1 + >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm really not keen on this, since it means that the Makefile (or some >>>>>>> vars it sets) are again involved in controlling the image generation. >>>>>>> It should really all be in the binman image description / .dtsi file >>>>>> >>>>>> binman does not allow me to unrole of-list inside the dts file, does it? >>>>>> With such a feature, I wouldn't need any custom -a of-list-X switches >>>>>> and, thus, no such EXTRA_ARGS. >>>>> >>>>> Can you explain a bit more about what you mean by 'unrole'? It is just >>>>> software, so anything should be possible. >>>> >>>> To use a DT sequence, I need to specify fit,ftd-list. But I can say >>>> >>>> fit,ftd-list = "first.dtb second.dtb" >>>> >>>> I rather need to go via the EntryArg indirection of the binman command line. >>> >>> Do you mean you would rather not use '-a CONFIG_OF_LIST'. Or are you >>> wanting to filter that list based on something else? >>> >>> I'm afraid I am really not following this at all. >> >> CONFIG_OF_LIST is not working here as we have two different boards with >> two different lists. > > But we only build one board at a time, don't we?
No, this is about building two flash images for two different board generations in the same binman run (see patch 3).
> > We could provide a way to select between different lists, but how does > Makefile get access to them?
See patch 3: known lists, now put into board config.mk.
Any better suggestions for this issue? Otherwise, I will have to keep binman args extension for now.
I've dug into this a bit. The use of #defines and macros looks to be unnecessary, unless I am missing something.
You can do things like this:
fit_node: fit { // base definition of FIT };
the later on:
fit_node: { #ifdef xxx // override a few things fit,fdt-list = ... #else
#endif
As I wrote already, I have a solution for that by using a template dtsi.
There is no need to specify the properties all at once. You can update a property later on just by referring to its node as above.
Does not help when the anchor name needs to vary as well. That's where I will use a #define to customize the template on include.
I think with this you should be above to eliminate BINMAN_EXTRA_ARGS and all the #define stuff.
You still didn't address my question. Should I share my version to make the problem clearer? But I thought I explained this in various shades already.
Yes, if I am looking at the wrong patches, please point me to the correct series, or push a tree somewhere.
Please have a look at https://github.com/siemens/u-boot/commit/393ce2b78cee9214edda7f7e04f6ca2ce14...
OK that looks a lot better to me. We can go with that until we come up with something better.
There has been a long-standing request to support common parts of images.
I am thinking something like this:
common_part: common-part { template; // indicates this is not a real image entry1 { ... }; entry2 { ... }; };
image1 { add-entries = <&common_part>; entry1 { fit,fdt-list = "something"; }; };
image2 { add-entries = <&common_part>;
// override a few things from entry1 entry1 { fit,fdt-list = "something else"; }; };
This would allow a common part to be included but still be adjusted depending on what each image needs. What do you think?
Regards, Simon