Re: [Buildroot] [External] Re: [PATCH 1/1] boot/uboot/uboot.mk: support binary pm_cfg_obj

From: Luca Ceresoli via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>
To: "Maier,
	Brandon L                            Collins"
	<Brandon.Maier@collins.com>
Cc: Neal Frager <neal.frager@amd.com>,
	"buildroot@buildroot.org" <buildroot@buildroot.org>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [External] Re: [PATCH 1/1] boot/uboot/uboot.mk: support binary pm_cfg_obj
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:21:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221213092151.74c1481c@booty> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BN0P110MB16733493900DDC40600F15A2EBE29@BN0P110MB1673.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Hello Brandon,

On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 15:41:27 +0000
"Maier, Brandon L                            Collins"
<Brandon.Maier@collins.com> wrote:

> Hello Luca,
> 
> > Can you describe a use case where this would be useful? While I
> > intuitively understand there _might_ be some, I cannot find any good
> > example based on my experience.
> > 
> > Building the pm_cfg_obj from source code is very easily done by
> > Buildroot, unlike building the PMUFW. Additionally one PMUFW binary
> > can be used on multiple zynqmp hardware, while the cfg obj is very
> > likely to change across different projects, and a somewhat readable
> > text file is way more understandable than a binary blob.  
>  
> One of our developers was having issues getting their pm_cfg_obj.c to compile with zynqmp_pm_cfg_obj_convert.py, so they decided to compile it manually instead. This patch set was the result when they asked why Buildroot wouldn't accept their bin file. However for our team this patch is now moot, as I ported your U-Boot fix for building Vivado 2021.x to their U-Boot and that fixed the issue ;)

Ah, good that you found the fix! :-)

> I decided to send this patch anyway, as I already tested it and it seems like a reasonable thing to support anyway.

Sure, it's worth having it out, in case a real use case will emerge in
the future we can revive it.

> > > This mimics changes done to the ZYNQMP_PMUFW which had a similar  
> > issue.
> > 
> > That is different: we now support two different binary formats, not
> > binary-vs-source, and detection is based on the file extension.  
>  
> I meant they are similar in the sense, they are both detecting based on file extension and then either preprocessing the file or passing it directly to U-Boot.

Ah, sure, indeed my point here was bogus. I replied to your email only
after reading the whole thread and I probably mixed yours and Neal's
arguments in my mind. Apologies for the noise.

-- 
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot