Hey Simon and Quentin,
Should I send one RFC for this for folks not using binman?
Regards,
Moteen
On 01/04/25 21:12, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Manorit,
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 18:04, Manorit Chawdhry <m-chawd...@ti.com> wrote:
Hi Quentin,
On 15:46-20250328, Quentin Schulz wrote:
Hi Moteen,
On 3/27/25 9:06 AM, Moteen Shah wrote:
Add a function to scan through all the nodes in the device-tree
recusively for bootph-* property. If found, propagate it to all
of its parent nodes up the hierarchy.
Signed-off-by: Moteen Shah <m-s...@ti.com>
---
tools/binman/control.py | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/binman/control.py b/tools/binman/control.py
index e73c598298c..e739949d366 100644
--- a/tools/binman/control.py
+++ b/tools/binman/control.py
@@ -526,6 +526,35 @@ def _RemoveTemplates(parent):
if node.name.startswith('template'):
node.Delete()
+def prop_bootph_to_parent(node, prop, dtb):
+ """Propagates bootph-* property to all the parent
+ nodes up the hierarchy
+ """
+ parent = node.parent
+ if parent == None or parent.props.get(prop):
+ return
+
+ while parent:
+ parent.AddEmptyProp(prop, 0)
+ parent = parent.parent
+
+def scan_and_prop_bootph(node, dtb):
+ """Scan the device tree and set the bootph-* property if its present
+ in subnode
+
+ This is used to set the bootph-* property in the parent node if a
+ "bootph-*" property is found in any of the subnodes of the parent
+ node.
+ """
+ bootph_prop = ['bootph-all', 'bootph-some-ram', 'bootph-pre-ram',
'bootph-pre-sram']
+
This should only be done for U-Boot proper DTB I believe, otherwise it'll
cause FDT size increase for TPL/SPL/VPL/whatever where we may be extremely
size-constrained. Furthermore, TPL/SPL/VPL should not need this since they
get a subset of the actual full DTB (see scripts/Makefile.lib and
fdtgrep_props), only containing the DT node that are relevant for the stage
in question. The only exception I can think of right now is if we use
bloblist or any other mechanism having the full DT passed from stage to
stage.
Maybe the solution is to have it as part of tools/binman/etype/u_boot_dtb.py
only?
Also, I imagine we want to support this for systems which do not use binman
(yet?)?
I think if we really want to unblock platforms that are facing this then
maybe the v1 of this patchset along with the v2 can be merged. ( keeping
v1 config as disabled by default for now ). This can help the platforms
wanting to fix this issue without binman by enabling that config in
their defconfig ( ofcourse with a boot time penalty which would force them to
migrate to binman ). Though not sure if this is the right way to go
about it but just a suggestion.
Yes that seems like a good idea to me.
Regards,
Simon
