From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from gloria.sntech.de (gloria.sntech.de [185.11.138.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6166023B0; Fri, 24 Jan 2025 10:50:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.11.138.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737715825; cv=none; b=MFHEBaFhuIuznK2Vj+8lWq9r31Xr6lsUyyGGfSJ+r2CkYv+fl0QerLHI/3twPnhDgGvk9RjwdQMsI8H7YKzZEoc/qcRJsPEMQkUljzG46uscIR1Rxbgbz0oa5vSamxBtzch4a3mAl1vxKEXZ9RLSoZEeFE/eadsHY6bd9pVlWdo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737715825; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fC8ojJw5iEcVAQVzUR0NhyFRUV/eovnO2xCfuULRoiI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FyxeTBItH1crtxySug1/S5b/6aWA94ltGE4jK9jxBom6+ttwZ+XpCsZryJJ3bPnQY9K4hLckxdXOsTBNxb3Zt9xxAxGFyMxpiGbRoH1xtffjf/ZDZStE+gTtqRlOoQaOfN4pxL8GvT2axuV4Y2I2tapjo91YlxnsTk+qlnmR56E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sntech.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sntech.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sntech.de header.i=@sntech.de header.b=AJi1RdET; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.11.138.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sntech.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sntech.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sntech.de header.i=@sntech.de header.b="AJi1RdET" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sntech.de; s=gloria202408; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=MiQnZe19xTeyKMg3y9MMnUOo5lM09IYL0AIRWqs9OIk=; b=AJi1RdETunGs5e0jtvXn2U4atc O2LlgL02wNcRfOfLDdR3mKwrVZndvKCaM8onyz+s0T15eNbkAilgH1dOZkwR+OnEDvwc42W7L6REp 2oeiHmS24BWpjPvRtzCCIFhQ1gBDipj79MG2i8RsdN97xopFsr44IGDVh0fHTOK+Gvgjm/aKJaw6S z4hyeCQeNks7NfZpAY3Xt70ZdVcG07uIRG4/TwT6GpXl8NY9pgoVPFx8IxcFEun9ED5ySO716sK/h wIzBiw3jUSM7oLEnKqviIOHX7x4SlrBpEszgoAkFDNJfjoguBzwzX5XQkuiM9lYtBPU+NSgIt/3Bk HYfeBsFA==; Received: from i53875b5c.versanet.de ([83.135.91.92] helo=diego.localnet) by gloria.sntech.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tbHGP-00076S-KW; Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:50:13 +0100 From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= To: Niklas Cassel Cc: Quentin Schulz , Quentin Schulz , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Jagan Teki , Michael Riesch , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: dts: rockchip: minimal support for Pre-ICT tester adapter for RK3588 Jaguar + add overlay tests Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:50:12 +0100 Message-ID: <4860198.rnE6jSC6OK@diego> In-Reply-To: References: <20250116-pre-ict-jaguar-v2-0-157d319004fc@cherry.de> <3324197.aV6nBDHxoP@diego> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Am Freitag, 24. Januar 2025, 11:21:00 CET schrieb Niklas Cassel: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 03:13:01PM +0100, Heiko St=FCbner wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2025, 17:12:26 CET schrieb Niklas Cassel: > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 04:38:16PM +0100, Quentin Schulz wrote: > > > > So essentially, if SPL_ATF_NO_PLATFORM_PARAM is selected (the defau= lt for > > > > RK356x, RK3588, forced on on RK3308, enabled for the majority of RK= 3399 > > > > boards, enabled for all RK3328 boards) the DT won't be passed to TF= =2DA so no > > > > issue in terms of size on that side. > > > > If it is not selected, for TF-A < 2.4 (released 20201117, 4 years a= go), a > > > > DTB bigger than 64KiB will crash TF-A. > > > > If it is not selected, for TF-A >=3D 2.4, a DTB bigger than 128KiB = will result > > > > in TF-A not being able to read the DTB (for Rockchip, that means no= t being > > > > able to derive the UART settings (controller and baudrate) to use, = and will > > > > use the compile-time default instead). > > >=20 > > > Not everyone is using binary blobs from Rockchip. > > > On my rock5b (rk3588), I'm building the bootloader using buildroot, > > > which is using upstream TrustedFirmware-A (v2.12). > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > > In short, I don't know where to go with that additional piece of > > > > information, but this is a bit bigger than simply moving things aro= und and > > > > adding compile-time tests for overlay application. > > >=20 > > > This is significant information indeed. > >=20 > > I guess the question is, can this hurt existing devices? > >=20 > > As Quentin mentioned, this only affects DTs that get handed over from > > U-Boot to TF-A (and maybe OP-TEE). > >=20 > > So the whole range of things loading their DT from extlinux.conf or > > whatever are not really affected. > >=20 > >=20 > > DTs U-Boot can hand over are 2 types, > > (1) built from within u-boot and > > (2) stored somewhere centrally (SPI flash). > >=20 > >=20 > > Case (1) is again not affected, as U-Boot (and other bootloaders) may > > very well sync the DTS files, but generally not the build-system, so if > > U-Boot (or any other bootloader) creates DTBs with symbols is completely > > their own choice. > >=20 > >=20 > > And for case (2) I see the manufacturer being responsible. Having the DT > > in central storage makes it somewhat part of a "bios"-level in the hira= rchy > > and the general guarantee is that new software _will work_ with older D= Ts, > > but the other way around is more a nice to have (old SW with new DTB). > >=20 > > So if some manufacturer has a centrally located DTB this does not matter > > until they upgrade, and when that happens I do expect testing to happen > > at the manufacturers side, before rolling out a "bios update" >=20 > Personally, I'm all for letting the kernel build the DTBs with symbols. >=20 > (I have a patch that I keep rebasing on my tree only for that purpose. > Sure, I could modify my build scripts to build the DTB separately, > but with this patch, I do not need to do anything since the kernel > builds the DTBs already.) >=20 > Other platforms, e.g. TI already build many boards with symbols: > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.13/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/Makef= ile#L242-L261 >=20 >=20 > You seems to have been against enabling symbols before: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/171941553475.921128.94674655392992= 33735.b4-ty@sntech.de/ > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/1952472.6tgchFWduM@diego/ >=20 > But if you have changed you mind, and you are no longer concerned about > doing so, then in my own self-interest I'm all for it :) I'm all for keeping compatibility as good as possible and that issue came on the table way too often already ;-) . In the past it was essentially easy to go with "just don't enable symbols" and not go down the nitty-gritty detail route - because that whole mesh of different firmware combinations gives me a headache ;-) [0] So finally going through those possible affected variants gave me those thoughts of "is there even an actual problem with existing boards?". Especially wrt forward<->backwards compatibility. Outcome is, I'm definitly not sure about myself, but also could not come up with an actual scenario. But that compile-time testing of applying DTBOs is way too great to pass up on :-) Heiko [0] If just some vendor would directly work on upstream TF-A from the beginning, instead of hacking up some half-decade old ATF ... ;-)