[PATCH v1] board: mpfs_icicle: implement board_fdt_blob_setup()
The firmware on the Icicle is capable of providing a devicetree in a1 to U-Boot, but until now the devicetree has been packaged in a "payload" [1] alongside U-Boot (or other bootloaders/RTOSes) and appended to the image. The address of this appended devicetree is placed in a1 by the firmware. This meant that the mechanism used by OF_SEPARATE to locate the devicetree at the end of the image would pick up the one provided by the firmware when u-boot-nodtb.bin was in the payload and U-Boot's devicetree when u-boot.bin was.
The firmware is now going to be capable of providing a minimal devicetree (quite cut down due to severe space constraints), but this devicetree is linked into the firmware that runs out of the L2 rather than at the end of the U-Boot image. Implement board_fdt_blob_setup() so that this devicetree can be optionally used, and the devicetree provided in the "payload" can be used without relying on "happening" to implement the same strategy as OF_SEPARATE expects in combination with u-boot-nodtb.bin. Unlike other RISC-V boards, the firmware provided devicetree is only used when OF_BOARD is set, so that the almost certainly more complete devicetree in U-Boot will be used unless explicitly requested otherwise.
Link: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/blob/master/tools/hs... [1] Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com --- CC: Ivan Griffin ivan.griffin@microchip.com CC: Padmarao Begari padmarao.begari@microchip.com CC: Cyril Jean cyril.jean@microchip.com CC: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com CC: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com CC: u-boot@lists.denx.de --- board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c index 4d7d843dfa3..2c1f7175f0e 100644 --- a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c +++ b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include <init.h> #include <asm/global_data.h> #include <asm/io.h> +#include <asm/sections.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -50,6 +51,24 @@ static void read_device_serial_number(u8 *response, u8 response_size) response_buf[idx] = readb(MPFS_SYS_SERVICE_MAILBOX + idx); }
+void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err) +{ + *err = 0; + /* + * The devicetree provided by the previous stage is very minimal due to + * severe space constraints. The firmware performs no fixups etc. + * U-Boot, if providing a devicetree, almost certainly has a better + * more complete one than the firmware so that provided by the firmware + * is ignored for OF_SEPARATE. + */ + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_BOARD)) { + if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr) + return (ulong *)(uintptr_t)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr; + } + + return (ulong *)_end; +} + int board_init(void) { /* For now nothing to do here. */
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:08:06AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
The firmware on the Icicle is capable of providing a devicetree in a1 to U-Boot, but until now the devicetree has been packaged in a "payload" [1] alongside U-Boot (or other bootloaders/RTOSes) and appended to the image. The address of this appended devicetree is placed in a1 by the firmware. This meant that the mechanism used by OF_SEPARATE to locate the devicetree at the end of the image would pick up the one provided by the firmware when u-boot-nodtb.bin was in the payload and U-Boot's devicetree when u-boot.bin was.
The firmware is now going to be capable of providing a minimal devicetree (quite cut down due to severe space constraints), but this devicetree is linked into the firmware that runs out of the L2 rather than at the end of the U-Boot image. Implement board_fdt_blob_setup() so that this devicetree can be optionally used, and the devicetree provided in the "payload" can be used without relying on "happening" to implement the same strategy as OF_SEPARATE expects in combination with u-boot-nodtb.bin. Unlike other RISC-V boards, the firmware provided devicetree is only used when OF_BOARD is set, so that the almost certainly more complete devicetree in U-Boot will be used unless explicitly requested otherwise.
Link: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/blob/master/tools/hs... [1] Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
CC: Ivan Griffin ivan.griffin@microchip.com CC: Padmarao Begari padmarao.begari@microchip.com CC: Cyril Jean cyril.jean@microchip.com CC: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com CC: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com CC: u-boot@lists.denx.de
board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c index 4d7d843dfa3..2c1f7175f0e 100644 --- a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c +++ b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include <init.h> #include <asm/global_data.h> #include <asm/io.h> +#include <asm/sections.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -50,6 +51,24 @@ static void read_device_serial_number(u8 *response, u8 response_size) response_buf[idx] = readb(MPFS_SYS_SERVICE_MAILBOX + idx); }
+void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err) +{
- *err = 0;
- /*
* The devicetree provided by the previous stage is very minimal due to* severe space constraints. The firmware performs no fixups etc.* U-Boot, if providing a devicetree, almost certainly has a better* more complete one than the firmware so that provided by the firmware* is ignored for OF_SEPARATE.*/- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_BOARD)) {
if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr)return (ulong *)(uintptr_t)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr;- }
- return (ulong *)_end;
+}
int board_init(void) { /* For now nothing to do here. */
I'm adding in Simon and Ilias as this touches on one of those frequent topics about how device trees can/should be passed along to us.
Hi,
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 15:34, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:08:06AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
The firmware on the Icicle is capable of providing a devicetree in a1 to U-Boot, but until now the devicetree has been packaged in a "payload" [1] alongside U-Boot (or other bootloaders/RTOSes) and appended to the image. The address of this appended devicetree is placed in a1 by the firmware. This meant that the mechanism used by OF_SEPARATE to locate the devicetree at the end of the image would pick up the one provided by the firmware when u-boot-nodtb.bin was in the payload and U-Boot's devicetree when u-boot.bin was.
The firmware is now going to be capable of providing a minimal devicetree (quite cut down due to severe space constraints), but this devicetree is linked into the firmware that runs out of the L2 rather than at the end of the U-Boot image. Implement board_fdt_blob_setup() so that this devicetree can be optionally used, and the devicetree provided in the "payload" can be used without relying on "happening" to implement the same strategy as OF_SEPARATE expects in combination with u-boot-nodtb.bin. Unlike other RISC-V boards, the firmware provided devicetree is only used when OF_BOARD is set, so that the almost certainly more complete devicetree in U-Boot will be used unless explicitly requested otherwise.
Link: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/blob/master/tools/hs... [1] Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
CC: Ivan Griffin ivan.griffin@microchip.com CC: Padmarao Begari padmarao.begari@microchip.com CC: Cyril Jean cyril.jean@microchip.com CC: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com CC: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com CC: u-boot@lists.denx.de
board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c index 4d7d843dfa3..2c1f7175f0e 100644 --- a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c +++ b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include <init.h> #include <asm/global_data.h> #include <asm/io.h> +#include <asm/sections.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -50,6 +51,24 @@ static void read_device_serial_number(u8 *response, u8 response_size) response_buf[idx] = readb(MPFS_SYS_SERVICE_MAILBOX + idx); }
+void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err) +{
*err = 0;/** The devicetree provided by the previous stage is very minimal due to* severe space constraints. The firmware performs no fixups etc.* U-Boot, if providing a devicetree, almost certainly has a better* more complete one than the firmware so that provided by the firmware* is ignored for OF_SEPARATE.*/if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_BOARD)) {if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr)return (ulong *)(uintptr_t)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr;}return (ulong *)_end;+}
int board_init(void) { /* For now nothing to do here. */
I'm adding in Simon and Ilias as this touches on one of those frequent topics about how device trees can/should be passed along to us.
The only thing I can think of is implementing bloblist in the a1 (?) firmware, then passing the DT in that.
It seems that you still need to be able to turn that on and off in U-Boot though. So far we have not agreed the mechanism to do that, I have the same problem, with a pending patch here[1]
Regards, Simon
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20240626155945.278640-12-sj...
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:36:49AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 15:34, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:08:06AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
The firmware on the Icicle is capable of providing a devicetree in a1 to U-Boot, but until now the devicetree has been packaged in a "payload" [1] alongside U-Boot (or other bootloaders/RTOSes) and appended to the image. The address of this appended devicetree is placed in a1 by the firmware. This meant that the mechanism used by OF_SEPARATE to locate the devicetree at the end of the image would pick up the one provided by the firmware when u-boot-nodtb.bin was in the payload and U-Boot's devicetree when u-boot.bin was.
The firmware is now going to be capable of providing a minimal devicetree (quite cut down due to severe space constraints), but this devicetree is linked into the firmware that runs out of the L2 rather than at the end of the U-Boot image. Implement board_fdt_blob_setup() so that this devicetree can be optionally used, and the devicetree provided in the "payload" can be used without relying on "happening" to implement the same strategy as OF_SEPARATE expects in combination with u-boot-nodtb.bin. Unlike other RISC-V boards, the firmware provided devicetree is only used when OF_BOARD is set, so that the almost certainly more complete devicetree in U-Boot will be used unless explicitly requested otherwise.
Link: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/blob/master/tools/hs... [1] Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
CC: Ivan Griffin ivan.griffin@microchip.com CC: Padmarao Begari padmarao.begari@microchip.com CC: Cyril Jean cyril.jean@microchip.com CC: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com CC: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com CC: u-boot@lists.denx.de
board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c index 4d7d843dfa3..2c1f7175f0e 100644 --- a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c +++ b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include <init.h> #include <asm/global_data.h> #include <asm/io.h> +#include <asm/sections.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -50,6 +51,24 @@ static void read_device_serial_number(u8 *response, u8 response_size) response_buf[idx] = readb(MPFS_SYS_SERVICE_MAILBOX + idx); }
+void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err) +{
*err = 0;/** The devicetree provided by the previous stage is very minimal due to* severe space constraints. The firmware performs no fixups etc.* U-Boot, if providing a devicetree, almost certainly has a better* more complete one than the firmware so that provided by the firmware* is ignored for OF_SEPARATE.*/if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_BOARD)) {if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr)return (ulong *)(uintptr_t)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr;}return (ulong *)_end;+}
int board_init(void) { /* For now nothing to do here. */
I'm adding in Simon and Ilias as this touches on one of those frequent topics about how device trees can/should be passed along to us.
The only thing I can think of is implementing bloblist in the a1 (?) firmware, then passing the DT in that.
a1 is the register that is used on riscv to pass the dtb, I think the corresponding thing on arm64 is x0.
Re-reading the firware handoff spec, it's difficult to see what benefits it actually provides us when we only ever have a single dtb which the firmware does not interact with/use. We are super space constrained in the firmware even carving out 4.5 KiB for a devicetree blob is a stretch and requires disabling other features and ripping out anything in the DT not required for U-Boot to load the OS. Even the ~1 KiB mentioned in bloblist.h for handling a bloblist would be a challenge.
I think the only way a bloblist could work is if it was created at build time and linked into the firmware, since the on-disk format seems pretty minimal. Is there tooling for generating a bloblist at build time that I could use to check whether or not a bloblist is viable? I'd also have to investigate how that would interact with OpenSBI, since it's integrated into the firmware and involved with loading U-Boot.
It seems that you still need to be able to turn that on and off in U-Boot though. So far we have not agreed the mechanism to do that, I have the same problem, with a pending patch here[1]
It seems your patch is trying to do some runtime determination of whether to examine the bloblist or not, but the ?existing? build-time check for BLOBLIST being enabled would work equally well/poorly as the OF_BOARD check the code I am adding. I'm not even really sure what runtime option could be used here here to check if the passed dtb/bloblist was to be used. U-Boot only runs here as supervisor mode U-Boot proper and always has a more complete devicetree. Whether to use the one passed to U-Boot just depends on what the person with the board wants to do - which, given this is an FPGA, could be vary significantly.
Cheers, Conor.
Hi Connor,
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 10:38, Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:36:49AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 15:34, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:08:06AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
The firmware on the Icicle is capable of providing a devicetree in a1 to U-Boot, but until now the devicetree has been packaged in a "payload" [1] alongside U-Boot (or other bootloaders/RTOSes) and appended to the image. The address of this appended devicetree is placed in a1 by the firmware. This meant that the mechanism used by OF_SEPARATE to locate the devicetree at the end of the image would pick up the one provided by the firmware when u-boot-nodtb.bin was in the payload and U-Boot's devicetree when u-boot.bin was.
The firmware is now going to be capable of providing a minimal devicetree (quite cut down due to severe space constraints), but this devicetree is linked into the firmware that runs out of the L2 rather than at the end of the U-Boot image. Implement board_fdt_blob_setup() so that this devicetree can be optionally used, and the devicetree provided in the "payload" can be used without relying on "happening" to implement the same strategy as OF_SEPARATE expects in combination with u-boot-nodtb.bin. Unlike other RISC-V boards, the firmware provided devicetree is only used when OF_BOARD is set, so that the almost certainly more complete devicetree in U-Boot will be used unless explicitly requested otherwise.
Link: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/blob/master/tools/hs... [1] Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
CC: Ivan Griffin ivan.griffin@microchip.com CC: Padmarao Begari padmarao.begari@microchip.com CC: Cyril Jean cyril.jean@microchip.com CC: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com CC: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com CC: u-boot@lists.denx.de
board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c index 4d7d843dfa3..2c1f7175f0e 100644 --- a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c +++ b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include <init.h> #include <asm/global_data.h> #include <asm/io.h> +#include <asm/sections.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -50,6 +51,24 @@ static void read_device_serial_number(u8 *response, u8 response_size) response_buf[idx] = readb(MPFS_SYS_SERVICE_MAILBOX + idx); }
+void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err) +{
*err = 0;/** The devicetree provided by the previous stage is very minimal due to* severe space constraints. The firmware performs no fixups etc.* U-Boot, if providing a devicetree, almost certainly has a better* more complete one than the firmware so that provided by the firmware* is ignored for OF_SEPARATE.*/if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_BOARD)) {if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr)return (ulong *)(uintptr_t)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr;}return (ulong *)_end;+}
int board_init(void) { /* For now nothing to do here. */
I'm adding in Simon and Ilias as this touches on one of those frequent topics about how device trees can/should be passed along to us.
The only thing I can think of is implementing bloblist in the a1 (?) firmware, then passing the DT in that.
a1 is the register that is used on riscv to pass the dtb, I think the corresponding thing on arm64 is x0.
Re-reading the firware handoff spec, it's difficult to see what benefits it actually provides us when we only ever have a single dtb which the firmware does not interact with/use. We are super space constrained in the firmware even carving out 4.5 KiB for a devicetree blob is a stretch and requires disabling other features and ripping out anything in the DT not required for U-Boot to load the OS. Even the ~1 KiB mentioned in bloblist.h for handling a bloblist would be a challenge.
I think the only way a bloblist could work is if it was created at build time and linked into the firmware, since the on-disk format seems pretty minimal. Is there tooling for generating a bloblist at build time that I could use to check whether or not a bloblist is viable? I'd also have to investigate how that would interact with OpenSBI, since it's integrated into the firmware and involved with loading U-Boot.
There is not such a tool, but it would be easy enough to write. If you think that would help, I could give it a try.
The confusing thing for me is that the 'firmware' is very constrained...but are you saying that U-Boot is not? Why pass U-Boot the DT? Perhaps you could explain the boot sequence so I can understand it better?
It seems that you still need to be able to turn that on and off in U-Boot though. So far we have not agreed the mechanism to do that, I have the same problem, with a pending patch here[1]
It seems your patch is trying to do some runtime determination of whether to examine the bloblist or not, but the ?existing? build-time check for BLOBLIST being enabled would work equally well/poorly as the OF_BOARD check the code I am adding. I'm not even really sure what runtime option could be used here here to check if the passed dtb/bloblist was to be used. U-Boot only runs here as supervisor mode U-Boot proper and always has a more complete devicetree. Whether to use the one passed to U-Boot just depends on what the person with the board wants to do - which, given this is an FPGA, could be vary significantly.
OK...so does this platform use SPL?
Regards, Simon
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:50:33AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 10:38, Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:36:49AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 15:34, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:08:06AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
The firmware on the Icicle is capable of providing a devicetree in a1 to U-Boot, but until now the devicetree has been packaged in a "payload" [1] alongside U-Boot (or other bootloaders/RTOSes) and appended to the image. The address of this appended devicetree is placed in a1 by the firmware. This meant that the mechanism used by OF_SEPARATE to locate the devicetree at the end of the image would pick up the one provided by the firmware when u-boot-nodtb.bin was in the payload and U-Boot's devicetree when u-boot.bin was.
The firmware is now going to be capable of providing a minimal devicetree (quite cut down due to severe space constraints), but this devicetree is linked into the firmware that runs out of the L2 rather than at the end of the U-Boot image. Implement board_fdt_blob_setup() so that this devicetree can be optionally used, and the devicetree provided in the "payload" can be used without relying on "happening" to implement the same strategy as OF_SEPARATE expects in combination with u-boot-nodtb.bin. Unlike other RISC-V boards, the firmware provided devicetree is only used when OF_BOARD is set, so that the almost certainly more complete devicetree in U-Boot will be used unless explicitly requested otherwise.
Link: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/blob/master/tools/hs... [1] Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
CC: Ivan Griffin ivan.griffin@microchip.com CC: Padmarao Begari padmarao.begari@microchip.com CC: Cyril Jean cyril.jean@microchip.com CC: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com CC: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com CC: u-boot@lists.denx.de
board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c index 4d7d843dfa3..2c1f7175f0e 100644 --- a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c +++ b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include <init.h> #include <asm/global_data.h> #include <asm/io.h> +#include <asm/sections.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -50,6 +51,24 @@ static void read_device_serial_number(u8 *response, u8 response_size) response_buf[idx] = readb(MPFS_SYS_SERVICE_MAILBOX + idx); }
+void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err) +{
*err = 0;/** The devicetree provided by the previous stage is very minimal due to* severe space constraints. The firmware performs no fixups etc.* U-Boot, if providing a devicetree, almost certainly has a better* more complete one than the firmware so that provided by the firmware* is ignored for OF_SEPARATE.*/if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_BOARD)) {if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr)return (ulong *)(uintptr_t)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr;}return (ulong *)_end;+}
int board_init(void) { /* For now nothing to do here. */
I'm adding in Simon and Ilias as this touches on one of those frequent topics about how device trees can/should be passed along to us.
The only thing I can think of is implementing bloblist in the a1 (?) firmware, then passing the DT in that.
a1 is the register that is used on riscv to pass the dtb, I think the corresponding thing on arm64 is x0.
Re-reading the firware handoff spec, it's difficult to see what benefits it actually provides us when we only ever have a single dtb which the firmware does not interact with/use. We are super space constrained in the firmware even carving out 4.5 KiB for a devicetree blob is a stretch and requires disabling other features and ripping out anything in the DT not required for U-Boot to load the OS. Even the ~1 KiB mentioned in bloblist.h for handling a bloblist would be a challenge.
I think the only way a bloblist could work is if it was created at build time and linked into the firmware, since the on-disk format seems pretty minimal. Is there tooling for generating a bloblist at build time that I could use to check whether or not a bloblist is viable? I'd also have to investigate how that would interact with OpenSBI, since it's integrated into the firmware and involved with loading U-Boot.
There is not such a tool, but it would be easy enough to write. If you think that would help, I could give it a try.
I mean I could also just do it myself, I just wanted to know if it existed, since that'd make investigating this pretty straightforward to do.
Either way, the firmware already is capable of doing this with a devicetree blob, so I figure even if we manage to get bloblist stuff going, there's little harm in supporting what's already there?
The confusing thing for me is that the 'firmware' is very constrained...but are you saying that U-Boot is not?
Correct. The firmware is in eNVM with a size limit of 128 KiB, but it can load U-Boot from mmc or flash etc.
Why pass U-Boot the DT?
Primarily to allow using a generic image to be used across multiple boards, using the compatible in the devicetree to determine what the boot the OS with. Another idea that was floated was using vendor SBI extension to request the information - but I felt that using DT was better than conjuring up something specific to us.
Perhaps you could explain the boot sequence so I can understand it better?
Ivan, correct me if I go off the rails here please... The firmware is stored in eNVM on the FPGA, the FPGA's "system controller" sets the reset vector for the CPUs to the location of the firmware. (There are some other boot modes, but they all work similarly). The firmware then decompresses itself into the L2 and runs primarily on hart 0, which is a "monitor core", supporting fewer ISA extensions etc than the 4 cores on which user applications/OSes run on.
The firmware then loads a "payload" from a storage device, that contains the next stage (or next stages if not running in SMP). The "payload" also describes the privilege levels for the next stage(s) and the locations in memory to load the next stage(s) to. OpenSBI is built into the firmware, although we can't actually fit the whole libsbi library that it provides. The firmware loads the next stage to whatever location has been provided to it in the "payload". For U-Boot, we're always running in S-Mode, so OpenSBI is used run the application once it has been loaded into memory and to provide the SBI ecall interface etc.
I hope that makes some sense, it probably doesn't...
There's some info on how the payloads configurations are constructed in the firmware repo here: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/tree/master/tools/hs...
It seems that you still need to be able to turn that on and off in U-Boot though. So far we have not agreed the mechanism to do that, I have the same problem, with a pending patch here[1]
It seems your patch is trying to do some runtime determination of whether to examine the bloblist or not, but the ?existing? build-time check for BLOBLIST being enabled would work equally well/poorly as the OF_BOARD check the code I am adding. I'm not even really sure what runtime option could be used here here to check if the passed dtb/bloblist was to be used. U-Boot only runs here as supervisor mode U-Boot proper and always has a more complete devicetree. Whether to use the one passed to U-Boot just depends on what the person with the board wants to do - which, given this is an FPGA, could be vary significantly.
OK...so does this platform use SPL?
No :)
Thanks, Conor.
Hi Conor,
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 23:27, Conor Dooley conor@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:50:33AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 10:38, Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:36:49AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 15:34, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:08:06AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
The firmware on the Icicle is capable of providing a devicetree in a1 to U-Boot, but until now the devicetree has been packaged in a "payload" [1] alongside U-Boot (or other bootloaders/RTOSes) and appended to the image. The address of this appended devicetree is placed in a1 by the firmware. This meant that the mechanism used by OF_SEPARATE to locate the devicetree at the end of the image would pick up the one provided by the firmware when u-boot-nodtb.bin was in the payload and U-Boot's devicetree when u-boot.bin was.
The firmware is now going to be capable of providing a minimal devicetree (quite cut down due to severe space constraints), but this devicetree is linked into the firmware that runs out of the L2 rather than at the end of the U-Boot image. Implement board_fdt_blob_setup() so that this devicetree can be optionally used, and the devicetree provided in the "payload" can be used without relying on "happening" to implement the same strategy as OF_SEPARATE expects in combination with u-boot-nodtb.bin. Unlike other RISC-V boards, the firmware provided devicetree is only used when OF_BOARD is set, so that the almost certainly more complete devicetree in U-Boot will be used unless explicitly requested otherwise.
Link: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/blob/master/tools/hs... [1] Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
CC: Ivan Griffin ivan.griffin@microchip.com CC: Padmarao Begari padmarao.begari@microchip.com CC: Cyril Jean cyril.jean@microchip.com CC: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com CC: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com CC: u-boot@lists.denx.de
board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c index 4d7d843dfa3..2c1f7175f0e 100644 --- a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c +++ b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include <init.h> #include <asm/global_data.h> #include <asm/io.h> +#include <asm/sections.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -50,6 +51,24 @@ static void read_device_serial_number(u8 *response, u8 response_size) response_buf[idx] = readb(MPFS_SYS_SERVICE_MAILBOX + idx); }
+void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err) +{
*err = 0;/** The devicetree provided by the previous stage is very minimal due to* severe space constraints. The firmware performs no fixups etc.* U-Boot, if providing a devicetree, almost certainly has a better* more complete one than the firmware so that provided by the firmware* is ignored for OF_SEPARATE.*/if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_BOARD)) {if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr)return (ulong *)(uintptr_t)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr;}return (ulong *)_end;+}
int board_init(void) { /* For now nothing to do here. */
I'm adding in Simon and Ilias as this touches on one of those frequent topics about how device trees can/should be passed along to us.
The only thing I can think of is implementing bloblist in the a1 (?) firmware, then passing the DT in that.
a1 is the register that is used on riscv to pass the dtb, I think the corresponding thing on arm64 is x0.
Re-reading the firware handoff spec, it's difficult to see what benefits it actually provides us when we only ever have a single dtb which the firmware does not interact with/use. We are super space constrained in the firmware even carving out 4.5 KiB for a devicetree blob is a stretch and requires disabling other features and ripping out anything in the DT not required for U-Boot to load the OS. Even the ~1 KiB mentioned in bloblist.h for handling a bloblist would be a challenge.
I think the only way a bloblist could work is if it was created at build time and linked into the firmware, since the on-disk format seems pretty minimal. Is there tooling for generating a bloblist at build time that I could use to check whether or not a bloblist is viable? I'd also have to investigate how that would interact with OpenSBI, since it's integrated into the firmware and involved with loading U-Boot.
There is not such a tool, but it would be easy enough to write. If you think that would help, I could give it a try.
I mean I could also just do it myself, I just wanted to know if it existed, since that'd make investigating this pretty straightforward to do.
Someone is already working on it. https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/29253 this will help!
Either way, the firmware already is capable of doing this with a devicetree blob, so I figure even if we manage to get bloblist stuff going, there's little harm in supporting what's already there?
There isn't, but OTOH the bloblist support is already in u-boot. I would prefer to try that out first. Up to you
Cheers /Ilias
The confusing thing for me is that the 'firmware' is very constrained...but are you saying that U-Boot is not?
Correct. The firmware is in eNVM with a size limit of 128 KiB, but it can load U-Boot from mmc or flash etc.
Why pass U-Boot the DT?
Primarily to allow using a generic image to be used across multiple boards, using the compatible in the devicetree to determine what the boot the OS with. Another idea that was floated was using vendor SBI extension to request the information - but I felt that using DT was better than conjuring up something specific to us.
Perhaps you could explain the boot sequence so I can understand it better?
Ivan, correct me if I go off the rails here please... The firmware is stored in eNVM on the FPGA, the FPGA's "system controller" sets the reset vector for the CPUs to the location of the firmware. (There are some other boot modes, but they all work similarly). The firmware then decompresses itself into the L2 and runs primarily on hart 0, which is a "monitor core", supporting fewer ISA extensions etc than the 4 cores on which user applications/OSes run on.
The firmware then loads a "payload" from a storage device, that contains the next stage (or next stages if not running in SMP). The "payload" also describes the privilege levels for the next stage(s) and the locations in memory to load the next stage(s) to. OpenSBI is built into the firmware, although we can't actually fit the whole libsbi library that it provides. The firmware loads the next stage to whatever location has been provided to it in the "payload". For U-Boot, we're always running in S-Mode, so OpenSBI is used run the application once it has been loaded into memory and to provide the SBI ecall interface etc.
I hope that makes some sense, it probably doesn't...
There's some info on how the payloads configurations are constructed in the firmware repo here: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/tree/master/tools/hs...
It seems that you still need to be able to turn that on and off in U-Boot though. So far we have not agreed the mechanism to do that, I have the same problem, with a pending patch here[1]
It seems your patch is trying to do some runtime determination of whether to examine the bloblist or not, but the ?existing? build-time check for BLOBLIST being enabled would work equally well/poorly as the OF_BOARD check the code I am adding. I'm not even really sure what runtime option could be used here here to check if the passed dtb/bloblist was to be used. U-Boot only runs here as supervisor mode U-Boot proper and always has a more complete devicetree. Whether to use the one passed to U-Boot just depends on what the person with the board wants to do - which, given this is an FPGA, could be vary significantly.
OK...so does this platform use SPL?
No :)
Thanks, Conor.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 08:53:11AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 23:27, Conor Dooley conor@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:50:33AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 10:38, Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:36:49AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
I think the only way a bloblist could work is if it was created at build time and linked into the firmware, since the on-disk format seems pretty minimal. Is there tooling for generating a bloblist at build time that I could use to check whether or not a bloblist is viable? I'd also have to investigate how that would interact with OpenSBI, since it's integrated into the firmware and involved with loading U-Boot.
There is not such a tool, but it would be easy enough to write. If you think that would help, I could give it a try.
I mean I could also just do it myself, I just wanted to know if it existed, since that'd make investigating this pretty straightforward to do.
Someone is already working on it. https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/29253 this will help!
Eww, gerrit. Thanks for the link.
Either way, the firmware already is capable of doing this with a devicetree blob, so I figure even if we manage to get bloblist stuff going, there's little harm in supporting what's already there?
There isn't, but OTOH the bloblist support is already in u-boot.
Devicetree in a1 support is already in U-Boot too, it's already been nicely placed in gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr by the arch code :)
I would prefer to try that out first. Up to you
If it is up to me, I am going to say go with what I have already done, as it's much easier to update U-Boot on a disk that you can write to from Linux than it is to change the firmware in envm and something functional already exists.
Hi Conor,
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 21:27, Conor Dooley conor@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:50:33AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 10:38, Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:36:49AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 15:34, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:08:06AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
The firmware on the Icicle is capable of providing a devicetree in a1 to U-Boot, but until now the devicetree has been packaged in a "payload" [1] alongside U-Boot (or other bootloaders/RTOSes) and appended to the image. The address of this appended devicetree is placed in a1 by the firmware. This meant that the mechanism used by OF_SEPARATE to locate the devicetree at the end of the image would pick up the one provided by the firmware when u-boot-nodtb.bin was in the payload and U-Boot's devicetree when u-boot.bin was.
The firmware is now going to be capable of providing a minimal devicetree (quite cut down due to severe space constraints), but this devicetree is linked into the firmware that runs out of the L2 rather than at the end of the U-Boot image. Implement board_fdt_blob_setup() so that this devicetree can be optionally used, and the devicetree provided in the "payload" can be used without relying on "happening" to implement the same strategy as OF_SEPARATE expects in combination with u-boot-nodtb.bin. Unlike other RISC-V boards, the firmware provided devicetree is only used when OF_BOARD is set, so that the almost certainly more complete devicetree in U-Boot will be used unless explicitly requested otherwise.
Link: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/blob/master/tools/hs... [1] Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
CC: Ivan Griffin ivan.griffin@microchip.com CC: Padmarao Begari padmarao.begari@microchip.com CC: Cyril Jean cyril.jean@microchip.com CC: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com CC: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com CC: u-boot@lists.denx.de
board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c index 4d7d843dfa3..2c1f7175f0e 100644 --- a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c +++ b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include <init.h> #include <asm/global_data.h> #include <asm/io.h> +#include <asm/sections.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -50,6 +51,24 @@ static void read_device_serial_number(u8 *response, u8 response_size) response_buf[idx] = readb(MPFS_SYS_SERVICE_MAILBOX + idx); }
+void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err) +{
*err = 0;/** The devicetree provided by the previous stage is very minimal due to* severe space constraints. The firmware performs no fixups etc.* U-Boot, if providing a devicetree, almost certainly has a better* more complete one than the firmware so that provided by the firmware* is ignored for OF_SEPARATE.*/if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_BOARD)) {if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr)return (ulong *)(uintptr_t)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr;}return (ulong *)_end;+}
int board_init(void) { /* For now nothing to do here. */
I'm adding in Simon and Ilias as this touches on one of those frequent topics about how device trees can/should be passed along to us.
The only thing I can think of is implementing bloblist in the a1 (?) firmware, then passing the DT in that.
a1 is the register that is used on riscv to pass the dtb, I think the corresponding thing on arm64 is x0.
Re-reading the firware handoff spec, it's difficult to see what benefits it actually provides us when we only ever have a single dtb which the firmware does not interact with/use. We are super space constrained in the firmware even carving out 4.5 KiB for a devicetree blob is a stretch and requires disabling other features and ripping out anything in the DT not required for U-Boot to load the OS. Even the ~1 KiB mentioned in bloblist.h for handling a bloblist would be a challenge.
I think the only way a bloblist could work is if it was created at build time and linked into the firmware, since the on-disk format seems pretty minimal. Is there tooling for generating a bloblist at build time that I could use to check whether or not a bloblist is viable? I'd also have to investigate how that would interact with OpenSBI, since it's integrated into the firmware and involved with loading U-Boot.
There is not such a tool, but it would be easy enough to write. If you think that would help, I could give it a try.
I mean I could also just do it myself, I just wanted to know if it existed, since that'd make investigating this pretty straightforward to do.
Either way, the firmware already is capable of doing this with a devicetree blob, so I figure even if we manage to get bloblist stuff going, there's little harm in supporting what's already there?
The confusing thing for me is that the 'firmware' is very constrained...but are you saying that U-Boot is not?
Correct. The firmware is in eNVM with a size limit of 128 KiB, but it can load U-Boot from mmc or flash etc.
Why pass U-Boot the DT?
Primarily to allow using a generic image to be used across multiple boards, using the compatible in the devicetree to determine what the boot the OS with. Another idea that was floated was using vendor SBI extension to request the information - but I felt that using DT was better than conjuring up something specific to us.
Perhaps you could explain the boot sequence so I can understand it better?
Ivan, correct me if I go off the rails here please... The firmware is stored in eNVM on the FPGA, the FPGA's "system controller" sets the reset vector for the CPUs to the location of the firmware. (There are some other boot modes, but they all work similarly). The firmware then decompresses itself into the L2 and runs primarily on hart 0, which is a "monitor core", supporting fewer ISA extensions etc than the 4 cores on which user applications/OSes run on.
The firmware then loads a "payload" from a storage device, that contains the next stage (or next stages if not running in SMP). The "payload" also describes the privilege levels for the next stage(s) and the locations in memory to load the next stage(s) to. OpenSBI is built into the firmware, although we can't actually fit the whole libsbi library that it provides. The firmware loads the next stage to whatever location has been provided to it in the "payload". For U-Boot, we're always running in S-Mode, so OpenSBI is used run the application once it has been loaded into memory and to provide the SBI ecall interface etc.
I hope that makes some sense, it probably doesn't...
There's some info on how the payloads configurations are constructed in the firmware repo here: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/tree/master/tools/hs...
It seems that you still need to be able to turn that on and off in U-Boot though. So far we have not agreed the mechanism to do that, I have the same problem, with a pending patch here[1]
It seems your patch is trying to do some runtime determination of whether to examine the bloblist or not, but the ?existing? build-time check for BLOBLIST being enabled would work equally well/poorly as the OF_BOARD check the code I am adding. I'm not even really sure what runtime option could be used here here to check if the passed dtb/bloblist was to be used. U-Boot only runs here as supervisor mode U-Boot proper and always has a more complete devicetree. Whether to use the one passed to U-Boot just depends on what the person with the board wants to do - which, given this is an FPGA, could be vary significantly.
OK...so does this platform use SPL?
No :)
OK, thanks for all the details. I suppose, to me, 128KB does not sound that constrained :-) But I can see that messing with a bloblist can add code. A static tool would help with that.
Regards, Simon
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 07:22:35AM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 21:27, Conor Dooley conor@kernel.org wrote:
OK, thanks for all the details. I suppose, to me, 128KB does not sound that constrained :-) But I can see that messing with a bloblist can add code. A static tool would help with that.
It's all relative - when libsbi.a is > 3 MiB 128KiB is a problem!
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:08:06AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
The firmware on the Icicle is capable of providing a devicetree in a1 to U-Boot, but until now the devicetree has been packaged in a "payload" [1] alongside U-Boot (or other bootloaders/RTOSes) and appended to the image. The address of this appended devicetree is placed in a1 by the firmware. This meant that the mechanism used by OF_SEPARATE to locate the devicetree at the end of the image would pick up the one provided by the firmware when u-boot-nodtb.bin was in the payload and U-Boot's devicetree when u-boot.bin was.
The firmware is now going to be capable of providing a minimal devicetree (quite cut down due to severe space constraints), but this devicetree is linked into the firmware that runs out of the L2 rather than at the end of the U-Boot image. Implement board_fdt_blob_setup() so that this devicetree can be optionally used, and the devicetree provided in the "payload" can be used without relying on "happening" to implement the same strategy as OF_SEPARATE expects in combination with u-boot-nodtb.bin. Unlike other RISC-V boards, the firmware provided devicetree is only used when OF_BOARD is set, so that the almost certainly more complete devicetree in U-Boot will be used unless explicitly requested otherwise.
Link: https://github.com/polarfire-soc/hart-software-services/blob/master/tools/hs... [1] Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com
Off-list it was suggested to me to use MULTI_DTB_FIT in addition what what I've done here, to allow U-Boot to actually make use of the information in the firmware provided dtb to select a more complete dtb for the OS (or for itself). I whipped up the following quickly just to test that it works, but was super lazy about it as you can see: diff --git a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c index ade150bec98..76f37a7199c 100644 --- a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c +++ b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c @@ -52,6 +52,31 @@ static void read_device_serial_number(u8 *response, u8 response_size) response_buf[idx] = readb(MPFS_SYS_SERVICE_MAILBOX + idx); }
+#ifdef CONFIG_MULTI_DTB_FIT +int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name) +{ + + char compat[256] = "microchip,"; + size_t max = 256 - strlen("microchip,"); + int ret; + + /* + * If there's not a HSS provided dtb, there's no point re-selecting + * since we'd just end up re-selecting the same dtb again. + */ + if (!gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr) + return -EINVAL; + + strncat(compat, name, max); + ret = fdt_node_check_compatible((void *)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr, 0, compat); + if (ret) + return -EINVAL; + + debug("found a match for compat: %s\n", compat); + return 0; +} +#endif + void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err) { *err = 0;
I'd rather invert the logic so that we compare the name of the config with the compatible strings sans vendor prefix - what's here would work for any of the boards were we are the vendor but not for the beaglev-fire. Granted that board is not supported in U-Boot right now, but I'll probably accompany a v2 of this that with an OF_UPSTREAM conversion for the PolarFire SoC boards.
However, I don't really understand how I could make my implementation of board_fdt_blob_setup() play nicely. It appears that if I enable OF_BOARD then then the multi dtb stuff never kicks in (since we've updated the fdt pointer to that of the firmware provided dtb). Given that setup_multi_dtb_fit() is called almost immediately after board_fdt_blob_setup() in fdtdec_setup(), it seems like dropping board_fdt_blob_setup() entirely might be a better approach?
I think that'll have the same behaviours we want w.r.t. firmware config options etc - except U-Boot will have to be built with functional devicetrees for all boards it wants to support. Maybe that's not a problem since it'd still be a single build for all boards. Maybe Heinrich has a better opinion there than I do..
Thanks, Conor.
CC: Ivan Griffin ivan.griffin@microchip.com CC: Padmarao Begari padmarao.begari@microchip.com CC: Cyril Jean cyril.jean@microchip.com CC: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com CC: Conor Dooley conor.dooley@microchip.com CC: u-boot@lists.denx.de
board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c index 4d7d843dfa3..2c1f7175f0e 100644 --- a/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c +++ b/board/microchip/mpfs_icicle/mpfs_icicle.c @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ #include <init.h> #include <asm/global_data.h> #include <asm/io.h> +#include <asm/sections.h>
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
@@ -50,6 +51,24 @@ static void read_device_serial_number(u8 *response, u8 response_size) response_buf[idx] = readb(MPFS_SYS_SERVICE_MAILBOX + idx); }
+void *board_fdt_blob_setup(int *err) +{
- *err = 0;
- /*
* The devicetree provided by the previous stage is very minimal due to* severe space constraints. The firmware performs no fixups etc.* U-Boot, if providing a devicetree, almost certainly has a better* more complete one than the firmware so that provided by the firmware* is ignored for OF_SEPARATE.*/- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_BOARD)) {
if (gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr)return (ulong *)(uintptr_t)gd->arch.firmware_fdt_addr;- }
- return (ulong *)_end;
+}
int board_init(void) { /* For now nothing to do here. */ -- 2.43.2
participants (5)
-
Conor Dooley -
Conor Dooley -
Ilias Apalodimas -
Simon Glass -
Tom Rini