Hi Patrick,
On 12/13/22 15:34, neil.armstr...@linaro.org wrote:
On 13/12/2022 15:31, Patrick DELAUNAY wrote:
Hi,
On 11/22/22 20:43, Neil Armstrong wrote:
On 22/11/2022 20:11, Neil Armstrong wrote:
Hi,
On 21/11/2022 13:23, Quentin Schulz wrote:
Hi Patrick,
Thanks for looking at it.
On 10/28/22 11:01, Patrick Delaunay wrote:
Since the commit d5ba6188dfbf ("cmd: pxe_utils: Check fdtcontroladdr
in label_boot") the FDT or the FDTDIR label is required in
extlinux.conf
and the fallback done by bootm command when only the device tree
is present
in this command parameters is no more performed when FIT is used for
kernel.
The next file "extlinux.conf" no more selects the device tree in FIT
but use the pxe fallback with the device tree of U-Boot.
menu title Select the boot mode
DEFAULT test
LABEL test
KERNEL /fitImage
This serie restores the possibility to use a FIT in extlinux.conf
by using FDT label with the same string.
menu title Select the boot mode
DEFAULT test
LABEL test
KERNEL /fitImage
FDT /fitImage
even when a specific FIT config is used:
menu title Select the boot mode
DEFAULT test
LABEL test
KERNEL /fitImage#config
FDT /fitImage#config
The last commit of the series is only a minor improvement.
I tested this on my Puma RK3399 and it does work again, thanks.
However, I'm not sure this is what we should go for?
My worry is the following:
What happens for old releases (pre-v2022.04) where KERNEL worked
just fine without the FDT to load the fdt from the fitimage conf
specified in KERNEL field? Would we now need to keep an
extlinux.conf for pre-2022.04 releases where FDT wouldn't be set
and one for 2023.01 and later where FDT would be mentioned? That
does not seem like a good thing for distros.
I unfortunately cannot answer the question myself without spending
significant effort patching v2022.01 to get it to work on our Puma
module. Does anyone have access to a board to quickly check an
extlinux.conf with KERNEL and FDT set to /fitImage on a v2022.01
release?
I'm building kirkstone images with meta-meson having v2022.01, I'll
test with FDT set to /fitImage to see if it breaks.
It breaks:
Found /extlinux/extlinux.conf
Retrieving file: /extlinux/extlinux.conf
1: Yocto
Retrieving file: /fitImage
append: root=PARTUUID=3ebc0005-02 rootwait console=ttyAML0,115200
Retrieving file: /fitImage
Bad Linux ARM64 Image magic!
SCRIPT FAILED: continuing...
Can you share the extlinux file used for your test ?do you have my
patch ?
It was explicitly without your patch as Quentin asked, he hoped addingh
"FDT /fitImage" would not break u-boot pre d5ba6188dfbf, but no.
Your implementation requires changes in extlinux.conf (which could be
fine, I'm not arguing about this specifically). I however think we need
those required changes to be backward compatible with older U-Boot.
This means, a new extlinux.conf that works on newer U-Boot should also
work on older U-Boot without your patch.
Otherwise, we would have the following:
U-Boot \ extlinux.conf || old | new
====================================
old || OK | NOK
new || NOK | OK
What I am hoping for is:
U-Boot \ extlinux.conf || old | new
====================================
old || OK | OK
new || NOK | OK
or even fix the support for new U-Boot with old extlinux.conf (but that
seems not possible because how d5ba6188dfbf ("cmd: pxe_utils: Check
fdtcontroladdr in label_boot") works?).
This would give an easy migration path to any creator of this
extlinux.conf file by just migrating to the new format while not
requiring it to care about the version of U-Boot being used.
Cheers,
Quentin
