On Fri Jul 10, 2026 at 12:44 AM IST, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Anshul,
>
> On 2026-07-07T10:44:09, Anshul Dalal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> tools: binman: fix changes not being written to source.dtb
>>
>> In the current setup the changes done to the dtb by binman such as
>> bootph propagation are only made to the intermediary *.dtb.out but not
>> the final dtb.
>>
>> This means the final dtb that's in *-binman.dtsi never gets the required
>> changes applied. Therefore this patch fixes the behaviour by writing to
>> the supplied dtb before exiting with a modified test to catch any future
>> regressions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anshul Dalal <[email protected]>
>>
>> tools/binman/control.py | 3 +++
>> tools/binman/ftest.py | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> Please can you spell out the concrete symptom? What breaks in a real
> build when u-boot.dtb doesn't carry the bootph propagation - which
> stage reads it, what does it expect to find, and what goes wrong when
> it isn't there? The *-binman.dtsi reference is confusing since a .dtsi
> is a source file, not something written to.
The actual issue was observed while we were adding support for our a new
platform 'AM62l EVM' to U-Boot where the missing bootph properties meant
that the parent drivers were not being probed leading to boot failure.
>
> Also please rewrite in imperative present tense: 'Write the modified
> dtb back to dtb_fname so that ...' rather than 'this patch fixes the
> behaviour by ...'
Yeah, the former is more clear. Will fix in the next revision.
>
>> diff --git a/tools/binman/control.py b/tools/binman/control.py
>> @@ -677,6 +677,9 @@ def PrepareImagesAndDtbs(dtb_fname, select_images,
>> update_fdt, use_expanded, ind
>> dtb_item.Sync(auto_resize=True)
>> dtb_item.Pack()
>> dtb_item.Flush()
>> +
>> + # Copy the intermediary dtb ('u-boot.dtb.out') to the dtb supplied to
>> binman
>> + tools.write_file(dtb_fname, dtb.GetContents())
>
> This is updating an input file...really not keen on that! The updated
> dtb should already be written into the final image created by Binman.
Perhaps it's an issue with how we're using 'u-boot.dtb'. As I see now, a
lot of platforms (including TI's) are using 'u-boot.dtb' as the fdt for
U-Boot FIT. Do we not expect the final U-Boot FIT produced in those
builds to have this propagation logic applied?
To test things out, I built the am62x_evm_a53 platform and the fdt
extracted out of the built u-boot.img lacks proper bootph propagation
without this patch applied:
fdtget -t r build/u-boot.img_unsigned /images/fdt-0/ data >
extracted.dtb
It makes sense to not modify the input files so then should we change
the DTB we use in the u-boot's FIT to 'u-boot.dtb.out' instead of
'u-boot.dtb'?
>
> Regards,
> Simon
