On 10/9/26 09:23, Simon Glass wrote:
On 2026-09-23T11:49:31, Ludwig Nussel <[email protected]> wrote:

- Note: commit 68e65953400 introduced forcing OF_OMIT_DTB which is
   incompatible with the intent of the qemu DT merging feature, ie merge
   built-in signature nodes into qemu's DT. To be sorted out at some
   point.

One thing I'd like to check before this series goes in.. with this
series applied, qemu_arm64_defconfig still ends up with
CONFIG_OF_OMIT_DTB=y, since ARCH_QEMU implies OF_HAS_PRIOR_STAGE and
BINMAN is not enabled. OF_OMIT_DTB no longer has a prompt, so the 'is
not set' line added to the defconfig in patch 1 has no effect and
savedefconfig drops it. As a result qemu_arm64 never has a built-in
DT, the merge code in patch 1 always takes the early exit, and the
problem in the cover letter (QEMU not seeing the public keys) remains
by default. The patch 1 commit message also says the defconfig change
enables the feature, which is no longer true.

Please can you either fix the Kconfig (e.g. stop defaulting
OF_OMIT_DTB to y for QEMU when FIT_SIGNATURE is enabled, or let
ARCH_QEMU opt out some other way), or drop the defconfig change and
say clearly that the merge only happens on builds that include a DT? A
test for the merge itself would be good, perhaps as a follow-up, since
none of the vboot tests run on QEMU. This may also be worth checking
against the CI failure Tom reported.

When I developed the patch OF_OMIT_DTB was "default". 68e65953400 changed it to "def_bool". Would something like this make sense as a fix?

--- a/dts/Kconfig
+++ b/dts/Kconfig
@@ -213,7 +213,8 @@ config OF_HAS_PRIOR_STAGE
          disabled in the board's defconfig file.

 config OF_OMIT_DTB
-       def_bool y if OF_HAS_PRIOR_STAGE && !BINMAN
+       def_bool y if OF_HAS_PRIOR_STAGE && !BINMAN && !ARCH_QEMU
+       def_bool n if ARCH_QEMU
        help
As a special case, avoid writing a device tree file u-boot.dtb when
          building. Also don't include that file in u-boot.bin

cu
Ludwig

--
Ludwig Nussel
Siemens AG
www.siemens.com

Reply via email to