On Fri Aug 21, 2026 at 11:44 PM IST, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>
>
> On 8/10/26 2:06 PM, Anshul Dalal wrote:
>> On Wed Jul 29, 2026 at 4:12 PM IST, Quentin Schulz wrote:
>>> Hi Anshul,
>>>
>>> On 7/29/26 12:24 PM, Anshul Dalal wrote:
>>>> The phandles used inside a template are not copied to the node inserting
>>>> the template, leading to a missing phandle error.
>>>>
>>>> The following example can be used to reproduce the issue:
>>>>
>>>> &binman {
>>>> some_template: template-0 {
>>>> ti-secure-rom {
>>>> content = <&some_data>;
>>>> keyfile = "some_key";
>>>> };
>>>> some_data: blob-ext {
>>>> optional;
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>> output-bin {
>>>> insert-template = <&some_template>;
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>
>>> What happens if you insert the template *twice*.
>>>
>>> e.g. have:
>>>
>>> &binman {
>>> some_template: template-0 {
>>> ti-secure-rom {
>>> content = <&some_data>;
>>> keyfile = "some_key";
>>> };
>>> some_data: blob-ext {
>>> optional;
>>> };
>>> };
>>> output-bin {
>>> insert-template = <&some_template>;
>>> };
>>> output-bin2 {
>>> insert-template = <&some_template>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>> ? Gut feeling is that this will fail to build because we now have the
>>> same label for two different nodes.
>>
>> Yes, it will cause a failure due to duplicated phandles. And as per the
>> docs[1], it seems to be an expected qwirk of how templates work.
>>
>
> What's the point of a template if we can only have it once?
>
> Couldn't we simply have
We could have it that way but from what I see, templates are mostly used
only once per DTS in the source.
With the most common use case being where the template is defined for a
SoC family in a dtsi (such as k3-binman.dtsi for TI) and each SoC then
using the respective templates only once.
I think this fix is justified here since we don't expect users to have
multiple template insertions anyways.
>
> &binman {
> some_template: template-0 {
> ti-secure-rom {
> keyfile = "some_key";
> };
> blob-ext {
> optional;
> };
> };
> output-bin {
> insert-template = <&some_template>;
> ti-secure-rom {
> content = <&{/binman/output-bin/blob-ext}>;
> };
> };
> output-bin2 {
> insert-template = <&some_template>;
> ti-secure-rom {
> content = <&{/binman/output-bin2/blob-ext}>;
> };
> };
>
> or
>
> &binman {
> some_template: template-0 {
> ti-secure-rom {
> keyfile = "some_key";
> };
> blob-ext {
> optional;
> };
> };
> output-bin {
> insert-template = <&some_template>;
> ti-secure-rom {
> content = <&output_bin_some_data>;
> };
> output_bin_some_data: blob-ext {};
> };
> output-bin2 {
> insert-template = <&some_template>;
> ti-secure-rom {
> content = <&output_bin2_some_data>;
> };
> output_bin2_some_data: blob-ext {};
> };
We could support that but since nobody is using duplicated templates,
should we really enforce this verbosity?
>
> Cheers,
> Quentin
