boot-architecture

boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org

3 participants
653 discussions

by Bill Mills

All, Monday Sept 6 is a US Holiday so I am canceling the call this week. Thanks, Bill -- Bill Mills Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro +1-240-643-0836 TZ: US Eastern Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur

4 years, 1 month

incompatible device trees between u-boot and linux

by François Ozog

Hi, Trying to respond to a U-Boot digest manually, please accept apologies as I don't know how to do it properly... >On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 06:43:23PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:24:08AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 06:12:20PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:26:10AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: >> > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 05:18:16PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:00:45AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 03:58:10PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I noticed that there is a fallback to the u-boot device tree for linux >> > > > > > > (esp. EFI boot) if no other device tree was found, see [1]. It seems this >> > > > > > > is working fine for imx devices, for example, where you can just boot a >> > > > > > > stock installer iso via EFI. It will just work and it is quite a nice >> > > > > > > feature as a fallback. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Now for the layerscape architecture, the ls1028a in my case, things are >> > > > > > > more difficult because the bindings differ between u-boot and linux - one >> > > > > > > which comes to mind is DSA and ethernet. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Which begs the general question, is it encouraged to have both bindings >> > > > > > > diverge? To me it seems, that most bindings in u-boot are ad-hoc and there >> > > > > > > is no real review or alignment but just added as needed, which is ok if >> > > > > > > they are local to u-boot. But since they are nowadays passed to linux >> > > > > > > (by default!) I'm not so sure anymore. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > OTOH The whole structure around a .dts{,i} and -u-boot.dtsi looks like >> > > > > > > they should (could?) be shared between linux and u-boot. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -michael >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] >> > > > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/u-boot/v2021.10-rc2/source/common/board_r.c#L471 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The U-Boot device tree is supposed to be able to be passed on to Linux >> > > > > > and Just Work. The bindings are not supposed to be different between >> > > > > > the two (except for when we take the binding while it's being hashed out >> > > > > > upstream BUT THEN RESYNCED). >> > > > > >> > > > > You might need to spell that out a bit clearer. >> > > > > >> > > > > You are saying that both U-Boot and Linux are allowed to have their own >> > > > > custom properties (like 'u-boot,dm-spl' for U-Boot, and 'managed = "in-band-status"' >> > > > > for Linux), as long as the device tree files themselves are in sync, and >> > > > > the subset of the device tree blob understood by Linux (i.e. the U-Boot >> > > > > blob sans the U-Boot specifics) is compatible with the Linux DT blob? >> > > > >> > > > I don't know what about the Linux example makes it Linux specific. But >> > > > yes, 'u-boot,dm-spl' is clearly in our namespace and should be ignored >> > > > by Linux. The whole reason we have the -u-boot.dtsi automatic drop-in >> > > > logic (as much as it can be used is that device trees are device trees >> > > ^ >> > > I don't think this parenthesis ever closes... >> > >> > Ah, whoops. Should have been "(as much as it can be used)" because it >> > does get #included instead in some cases, for reasons. >> > >> > > >> > > > and describe the hardware and developers don't need to write a device >> > > > tree for Linux and a device tree for U-Boot and a device tree for >> > > > FreeBSD and ... So yes, you're supposed to use the device tree for a >> > > ^ >> > > so I never get the answer to "the whole reason is...". >> > > >> > > > platform and it works here and there and every where. >> > > >> > > The fact that only Linux uses it makes it Linux specific. >> > > >> > > > > To expand even further on that, it means we should put 'managed = "in-band-status"' >> > > > > in U-Boot, which is a Linux phylink device tree property, even if U-Boot >> > > > > does not use phylink? >> > > > >> > > > We should be able to drop in the device trees from Linux and use them. >> > > > Custodians should be re-syncing them periodically. Some are, even. >> > > >> > > Are you ready to take up device tree bindings for PTP timers, PCIe root >> > > complex event collectors, cascaded interrupt controllers, things which >> > > U-Boot will never ever need to support? >> > > >> > > At least in Linux there is a policy to not add device tree nodes that do >> > > not have drivers. Is the same policy not true for U-Boot? At least your >> > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl does have the same "check for DT compatible >> > > documentation" section as Linux. You might consider removing it if you >> > > want people to not strip the DTs they submit to U-Boot. >> > > >> > > And why do we even maintain the device tree bindings in Linux at all? >> > > It seems rather counter-productive for both ends to do that, if it is >> > > expected that the kernel works with DT blobs provided by third parties too, >> > > and if all third parties need to resync with it (there are other boot >> > > loaders too beyond U-Boot, and other kernels beyond Linux). Somehow it >> > > doesn't feel right for the reference to be the Linux kernel. Maybe this >> > > is something that needs to be brought up with higher-level Linux maintainers. >> > > >> > > I have no problem at all with structuring the device tree in the same >> > > way in U-Boot as in Linux, as long as that proves to not be a foolish >> > > endeavor. >> > >> > DT is ABI is hardware description and OS-agnostic has been the rule for >> > 10+ years. If that's no longer the case, can someone please tell me? >> >> So if Michael's board with DT provided by U-Boot doesn't work for some >> stupid reason like "Linux expects the pcie node to be under /soc", or >> "Linux wants all PCIe BARs of a RCIEP ECAM to be spelled out in the >> 'ranges' property, because it's too dumb to detect them itself", or >> something like that, I've got no argument against that, let's go ahead >> and resync U-Boot with Linux. >> >> But "DT is ABI is hardware description" is a pretty vague truism that >> does not actually help here. > >I'm saying that because it's what's been said for what feels like 10+ >years. I don't want to think how many countless hours have been spent >on that point at conferences over the years. It's not even a Linux >thing. I would swear you can (or could, unless it got broken) take the >same DTB for some platforms and boot Linux or FreeBSD or some other BSD >or maybe even VxWorks and it works. > > I cannot agree more. For historical reasons in the embedded market, the product maker was the board maker, the distro producer and the firmware producer. That led to a situation where the Linux kernel developper was stating the hardware description and that led to...problems. The best analogy I have to describe how wrong this is: As a French driver, my Device Tree description about the car is that the steering wheel is on the left hand side of the car; when entering an English car, I just complain that the wheel is not where it should be. Now the value chain is going more "mature" and your may end up booting a Fedora IoT edition on a bunch of platforms that have been designed to boot any distro; and the Trusted Applications may come from the OEM and not the board maker. Organizing the software value chain along side of the hardware value chain (Silicon provider, SoM provider, Carrier provider, Integrator, Car manufacturer for instance) need DT technology and lifecycle re-boot. (softwsystem up firmware such as Trusted Firmware, boot firmware such as U-Boot and operating systems) Some elements of discussion can be found here: https://linaro.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DTE/overview https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLkhLRaz_zcCq44DLGmPZQFPbYHOC6nzPowaL0X… If we take the https://www.solid-run.com/arm-servers-networking-platforms/honeycomb-workst… board as an example to stay on NXP SoCs: what is the ideal way to deal with device tree should we start from a blank sheet? A key element are SerDes pins: from a SoC perspective they can be made PCI lanes or Ethernet lanes. This is chosen by the board vendor. An operating system should never manage the SerDes, it will see either the PCI lanes or the Ethernet port (not exactly true yet because of DPAA2 - but let's keep it high level). It is the responsibility of the firmware to actually match the SoC configuration with board layout (PCI slot, PCI device, Ethernet port). In my mind, the ideal situation is: The board vendor takes the SoC DT as input and applies fixups (at design time or runtime) to produce the board DT. The board DT should be independent from the firmware stack (Coreboot, TF-A+U-Boot, TF-A + LinuxBoot) and the booted OS: it is just describing the hardware!!! Firmware elements can still apply fixes at runtime: TF-A role is to pass detected DRAM, U-Boot may have a parameter (saved as U-Boot variable) to define active cores and ensures the DT is fixed up to match that desire, OP-TEE can expose the amount of Secure DRAM it has carved out through FF-A API. >> Will you accept device trees with devices for which a driver will never >> probe in U-Boot, > >Yes, I will absolutely take device trees that have devices we don't need >in U-Boot since the point is, and many SoC vendors are doing (and the >ones that aren't are, I am not happy about / with) right now. > >> and will you remove the checkpatch warnings about those, >> to not discourage people from submitting them prior to the actual public >> review? > >With respect to checkpatch.pl, maybe I'm just missing the line in >question? Or maybe it's a kernel-related warning we need to disable in >our .checkpatch.conf. But I don't want to side-track over this part. > >> If a U-Boot driver will be written for a device that does not have a >> driver yet in Linux, then the Linux driver will be written but with >> DT bindings incompatible with what was established in U-Boot, will you >> wake up the U-Boot developer from the grave and ask them to resync the >> driver to follow Linux? Or will you accept drivers at all for hardware >> that is not supported by Linux? > >What I've said for years (but yes, I've missed changes, maybe the yaml >dt binding stuff would help so I could make CI fail or at least require >manual override?) is that U-Boot will take immature bindings but it's on >the developer to re-sync once the bindings are fully reviewed. This is >to help with the chicken-and-egg problem. But old bindings are not >intended to be supported, once it's finalized. That is part of the >bargain. > >> I also think there are various degrees of what it means "to work" with a >> device tree provided directly by U-Boot. Distros like Arch Linux ARM >> have a package for device tree blobs, and it is expected that these are >> updated by the distro, and U-Boot just loads them. As Michael points out, >> the DT provided by U-Boot is just a fallback. The OS should boot to >> prompt and have a network connection to set itself up properly again. >> But we need to draw a harder line on what we _actually_ desire to work >> beyond that. > >Every distribution has a package for device tree binaries, because >that's how you get a device tree on the still vast majority of platforms >that don't ship one in-flash (RPis being the modern exception) and to my >knowledge none of them are happy about having to build and pass and make >sure the right one is used on a given board at boot. So yes, U-Boot >being able to pass a device tree on to the next stage is one of those >things to help everything Just Work and be boring. > >-- >Tom

4 years, 1 month

systemd's sd-boot: devicetree command using EFI_DT_FIXUP_PROTOCOL

by Heinrich Schuchardt

For systemd's GRUB replacement sd-boot there is a pull request for adding a devicetree command. The command calls the EFI_DT_FIXUP_PROTOCOL implemented in U-Boot for fixing up device-trees. Best regards Heinrich sd-boot: Support installing new devicetree https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/19417/commits/3c717de49ec35c2684653… EFI_DT_FIXUP_PROTOCOL specification https://github.com/U-Boot-EFI/EFI_DT_FIXUP_PROTOCOL

4 years, 1 month

No DT Evo call for Aug 23

by Bill Mills

All, I am on vacation this week and will not host the DT Evo call. See you in 2 weeks. BIll -- Bill Mills Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro +1-240-643-0836 TZ: US Eastern Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur

4 years, 1 month

EBBR Cancelled for 16th Aug 2021

by Grant Likely

Hi all, Sorry for the last minute notice, but I need to cancel the EBBR meeting due to a conflict that I cannot move. g. IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

4 years, 2 months

eBPF as replacement for UEFi EBC and ACPI AML

by François Ozog

This: https://linuxfoundation.org/press-release/facebook-google-isovalent-microso… Following earlier addition of eBPF in Windows kernel: https://github.com/microsoft/ebpf-for-windows Makes me think that the crazy idea I talked about a couple of months ago (subject of the mail) may not be that crazy…. Cheers FF -- François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Business Development* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

4 years, 2 months

DT Evo call today

by Bill Mills

All, I will be on the bridge today but I have no topics queued up. Heinrich will not be on the call. We will be looking for a new time for EBBR/DT Evo. Thanks, Bill -- Bill Mills Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro +1-240-643-0836 TZ: US Eastern Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur

4 years, 2 months

[EBBR PATCH] Relax Update requirements by dropping ESRT

by Grant Likely

The ESRT support in U-Boot is immature and not ready for mainline. Temporarily remove the ESRT requirement so that platforms can meaningfully conform to EBBR. When ESRT functionality has matured this requirement will can be brought back in. Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- Hi all, As described above, I'm proposing ESRT gets dropped for v2.0.x series of EBBR, with the plan to add it back in ebbr-next. Once there are U-Boot releases that have a solid ESRT implementation that works for fwupd, mender.io and possibly Windows Update then I would like to bring it back in. Here's the pull request for the change in github: https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/pull/86 Thoughts? g. source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 13 +------------ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index 092fd1d..4c4cacb 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -467,9 +467,7 @@ EBBR platforms are required to implement either an in-band or an out-of-band fir If firmware update is performed in-band (firmware on the application processor updates itself), then the firmware shall implement the `UpdateCapsule()` runtime service and accept updates in the "Firmware Management Protocol Data Capsule Structure" format as described in [UEFI]_ § 23.3, -"Delivering Capsules Containing Updates to Firmware Management Protocol. [#FMPNote]_ -Firmware is also required to provide an EFI System Resource Table (ESRT). [UEFI]_ § 23.4 -Every firmware image that can be updated in-band must be described in the ESRT. +"Delivering Capsules Containing Updates to Firmware Management Protocol." If firmware update is performed out-of-band (e.g., by an independent Baseboard Management Controller (BMC), or firmware is provided by a hypervisor), @@ -477,7 +475,6 @@ then the platform is not required to implement the `UpdateCapsule()` runtime ser `UpdateCapsule()` is only required before `ExitBootServices()` is called. - .. [#OPTEESupplicant] It is worth noting that OP-TEE has a similar problem regarding secure storage. OP-TEE's chosen solution is to rely on an OS supplicant agent to perform @@ -488,11 +485,3 @@ then the platform is not required to implement the `UpdateCapsule()` runtime ser during runtime services. https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/architecture/secure_storage.html - -.. [#FMPNote] The `UpdateCapsule()` runtime service is expected to be suitable - for use by generic firmware update services like fwupd and Windows Update. - Both fwupd and Windows Update read the ESRT table to determine what firmware - can be updated, and use an EFI helper application to call `UpdateCapsule()` - before `ExitBootServices()` is called. - - https://fwupd.org/ -- 2.20.1 IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

4 years, 2 months

Today's DT Evo call canceled

by Bill Mills

All, It appears we do not have quorum today so I will cancel. I am thinking of sending a doodle poll for a new time for this call. What are peoples thoughts? Thanks, Bill -- Bill Mills Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro +1-240-643-0836 TZ: US Eastern Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur

4 years, 2 months

Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for information passing between boot stages

by Julius Werner

> > Thank you all for your feedback. > > It appears that in theory we are all happy with using bloblist with few > implementation details which needs to be taken care of during > implementation. > Just to clarify: are you using "bloblist" as a general term for the concept of a simple linked list of tagged data blobs, or to refer specifically to the U-Boot implementation with that name? The existing TF-A implementation (bl_aux_params) is basically identical in concept to the U-Boot bloblist, but not binary compatible. Are we talking about just keeping that, or throwing it away in order to reimplement the exact structure U-Boot is using? (I would prefer to keep the bl_aux_params as they are to avoid disrupting existing uses, of course. Making backwards-incompatible changes to an interface that passes across multiple repos and firmware components is always a big pain.)

4 years, 3 months

← Newer
1
...
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
...
66
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture