Hi Tom, On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 17:16, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 03:25:18PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 14:46, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:43:49PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 14:06, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:12:27AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 07:56, Michal Simek <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/6/23 15:44, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 01:22:48PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Simon, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On 2/1/23 23:54, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > >>> Update various build and test components to use the new > > > > > > > >>> schema. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > > > > > > >>> --- > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> (no changes since v1) > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> drivers/core/ofnode.c | 10 +++++----- > > > > > > > >>> drivers/video/video-uclass.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > > > >>> dts/Kconfig | 2 +- > > > > > > > >>> include/dm/device.h | 2 +- > > > > > > > >>> include/dm/ofnode.h | 10 +++++----- > > > > > > > >>> scripts/Makefile.lib | 12 ++++++------ > > > > > > > >>> test/dm/test-fdt.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > >>> test/py/tests/test_ofplatdata.py | 8 ++++---- > > > > > > > >>> tools/binman/binman.rst | 3 +-- > > > > > > > >>> tools/dtoc/test_fdt.py | 8 ++++---- > > > > > > > >>> 10 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/core/ofnode.c b/drivers/core/ofnode.c > > > > > > > >>> index 4d56b1a7675..5249a60639b 100644 > > > > > > > >>> --- a/drivers/core/ofnode.c > > > > > > > >>> +++ b/drivers/core/ofnode.c > > > > > > > >>> @@ -1265,22 +1265,22 @@ bool ofnode_pre_reloc(ofnode node) > > > > > > > >>> { > > > > > > > >>> #if defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || defined(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) > > > > > > > >>> /* for SPL and TPL the remaining nodes after the fdtgrep > > > > > > > >>> 1st pass > > > > > > > >>> - * had property dm-pre-reloc or u-boot,dm-spl/tpl. > > > > > > > >>> + * had property bootph-all or > > > > > > > >>> bootph-pre-sram/bootph-pre-ram. > > > > > > > >>> * They are removed in final dtb (fdtgrep 2nd pass) > > > > > > > >>> */ > > > > > > > >>> return true; > > > > > > > >>> #else > > > > > > > >>> - if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-pre-reloc")) > > > > > > > >>> + if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-all")) > > > > > > > >>> return true; > > > > > > > >>> - if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-pre-proper")) > > > > > > > >>> + if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-some-ram")) > > > > > > > >>> return true; > > > > > > > >>> /* > > > > > > > >>> * In regular builds individual spl and tpl handling both > > > > > > > >>> * count as handled pre-relocation for later second init. > > > > > > > >>> */ > > > > > > > >>> - if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-spl") || > > > > > > > >>> - ofnode_read_bool(node, "u-boot,dm-tpl")) > > > > > > > >>> + if (ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-pre-ram") || > > > > > > > >>> + ofnode_read_bool(node, "bootph-pre-sram")) > > > > > > > >>> return true; > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Please correct me if I am wrong but this change will likely > > > > > > > >> break all boards > > > > > > > >> which didn't migrate to this at this stage. And because > > > > > > > >> targeting early > > > > > > > >> stages people will be without console. > > > > > > > >> I think we should have transition period for 1-2 releases to > > > > > > > >> give people > > > > > > > >> enough time to migrate. It means print big warning that they > > > > > > > >> have to migrate > > > > > > > >> their DTS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the migration case here we're missing? Is it platforms > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > maintain a dts externally, via tooling / etc, that populate > > > > > > > > those nodes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes and I expect there will be a lot of DTs around with some > > > > > > > changes for > > > > > > > specific products. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also for example QEMU is also generating DT based on it's > > > > > > > configuration and > > > > > > > provide it to U-Boot. > > > > > > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/blob/master/hw/arm/xlnx-versal-virt.c#L91 > > > > > > > When this patch is applied CI loop should fail for Versal. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure how it helps us to drag this out. It is a breaking > > > > > > change, but a drawn-out process is just going to create a lot of > > > > > > confusion. People should be free to use the schema in Linux .dts > > > > > > files > > > > > > from now on, but if it is not immediately supported in U-Boot then > > > > > > they cannot. This is the most important point, after all. > > > > > > > > > > Now that we've had some of the external migration issues laid out, > > > > > what > > > > > would it look like to have some sort of backwards compatible hook here > > > > > to fixup an older tree we've been passed? > > > > > > > > We can't do it for SPL, since the processing happens at built time, > > > > but for U-Boot proper we can do something like what Michal suggests, > > > > although perhaps with a warning rather than an error. Likely the > > > > warning would have to be displayed later (if/when U-Boot starts up) > > > > since the console may be one of the problem nodes. > > > > > > Right, if it's a build time thing, we should be able to ... something. > > > Maybe a detect and rename for now, detect and fail in a bit. But > > > > But we only have this problem with out-of-tree .dts files, so I'm not > > sure what you are suggesting here. > > I'm suggesting that you add the logic to detect these cases and deal > with it. We aren't talking about stuff that should have been upstreamed > but wasn't, we're talking about tooling that generates valid dts files > and needs time to update.
For runtime I think we can do something like what Michal suggested, but more permissive. We can warn about it when U-Boot has started up. There is no point in doing anything like that in the SPL phase as it is too late. But we can also add a build-time check, as you say. I think you are saying that it should work correctly in that case, rather than just fail? That is easy enough for U-Boot proper I think. For SPL I am not sure. I will take a look. Regards, Simon
