Hi Sascha, On 1/21/26 09:09, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 04:04:37PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: >> Hello Sascha, >> >> On 1/20/26 3:55 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote: >>> + if (kernel) >>> + bootm_data.os_file = kernel; >>> + >>> + if (initrd) >>> + bootm_data.initrd_file = initrd; >>> + >>> + close(fd); >>> + >>> + ret = bootm_boot(&bootm_data); >> >> Two quick comments: >> >> I think this feature will not be usable when >> CONFIG_BOOTM_OFTREE_FALLBACK is disabled, which is a shame, because I >> think normal deployments should disable that option to avoid unexpected >> fallback behavior. >> >> Here the fallback is expected though. Would it be possible to change >> this, so the barebox oftree is passed along explicitly to avoid falling >> into the fallback? > > When a user chooses to disable CONFIG_BOOTM_OFTREE_FALLBACK to avoid > using the internal device tree as a fallback then this decision should > be universally honoured. Explicitly inserting the internal device tree > in special cases contradicts this. > > Note that I have used this feature with a FIT image which carries its > own device tree, so I wasn't affected. > > We currently only support version 1 of the Android image format. Since > version 2 the image can also embed a device tree which can be passed > with the --dtb option to the fastboot command, so the solution to > address your concerns should be adding support for version 2. > > I would consider this a future enhancement though.
Ah, didn't consider that you can just boot FIT images this way. Then I also think it's ok keeping it as-is. >> On a related note, this will probably trigger a warning on every boot if >> the barebox device tree has a state node. Maybe we could mark dupes of >> the barebox device tree as such (maybe set device_node::dev to a special >> value?!), so we can skip the warning? > > You mean this warning? > > dev_warn(&state->dev, "Warning: Kernel devicetree contains state node, > replacing it\n"); > > We could mark it as duplicate as you suggested. Another possibility > would be to delete state nodes while duplicating the internal device tree. Oh, I like the second suggestion, thanks. Cheers, Ahmad > > Sascha > > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
