Re: [PATCH v2 20/25] binman: Support splitting an ELF file into multiple nodes

Simon Glass
2022-03-06T03:09:48Z

Hi Alper,

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 14:17, Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 24/02/2022 02:00, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Some boards need to load an ELF file using the 'loadables' property, but
> > the file has segments at different memory addresses. This means that it
> > cannot be supplied as a flat binary.
> >
> > Allow generating a separate node in the FIT for each segment in the ELF,
> > with a different load address for each.
> >
> > Also add checks that the fit,xxx directives are valid.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Rewrite this to use the new FIT entry-type implementation
> > - Rename op-tee to tee-os
> >
> > tools/binman/entries.rst | 146 ++++++++++++
> > tools/binman/etype/fit.py | 230 ++++++++++++++++++-
> > tools/binman/ftest.py | 147 ++++++++++++
> > tools/binman/test/226_fit_split_elf.dts | 67 ++++++
> > tools/binman/test/227_fit_bad_dir.dts | 9 +
> > tools/binman/test/228_fit_bad_dir_config.dts | 9 +
> > 6 files changed, 598 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/226_fit_split_elf.dts
> > create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/227_fit_bad_dir.dts
> > create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/228_fit_bad_dir_config.dts
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/binman/etype/fit.py b/tools/binman/etype/fit.py
> > index 30b20a07a2..63d552ed19 100644> > [...]
> >
> > @@ -154,6 +159,149 @@ class Entry_fit(Entry_section):
> >
> > Note that if no devicetree files are provided (with '-a of-list' as above)
> > then no nodes will be generated.
> > +
> > + Generating nodes from an ELF file (split-elf)
> > + ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > + This uses the node as a template to generate multiple nodes. The following
> > + special properties are available:
> > +
> > + split-elf
> > + Split an ELF file into a separate node for each segment. This uses the
> > + node as a template to generate multiple nodes. The following special
> > + properties are available:
> > +
> > + fit,load
> > + Generates a `load = <...>` property with the load address of the
> > + segmnet
>
> segmnet -> segment, missed it the first time around.
>
> > +
> > + fit,entry
> > + Generates a `entry = <...>` property with the entry address of the
> > + ELF. This is only produced for the first entry
> > +
> > + fit,data
> > + Generates a `data = <...>` property with the contents of the segment
> > +
> > + fit,loadables
> > + Generates a `loadable = <...>` property with a list of the generated
> > + nodes (including all nodes if this operation is used multiple times)
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > @@ -363,11 +514,20 @@ class Entry_fit(Entry_section):
> > fname = tools.get_input_filename(fdt_fname + '.dtb')
> > with fsw.add_node(node_name):
> > for pname, prop in node.props.items():
> > - val = prop.bytes.replace(
> > - b'NAME', tools.to_bytes(fdt_fname))
> > - val = val.replace(
> > - b'SEQ', tools.to_bytes(str(seq + 1)))
> > - fsw.property(pname, val)
> > + if pname == 'fit,loadables':
> > + val = '\0'.join(self._loadables) + '\0'
> > + fsw.property('loadables', val.encode('utf-8'))
> > + elif pname == 'fit,operation':
> > + pass
> > + elif pname.startswith('fit,'):
> > + self._raise(base_node, node,
> > + f"Unknown directive '{pname}'")
> > + else:
> > + val = prop.bytes.replace(
> > + b'NAME', tools.to_bytes(fdt_fname))
> > + val = val.replace(
> > + b'SEQ', tools.to_bytes(str(seq + 1)))
> > + fsw.property(pname, val)
>
> I get two distinct "loadables" properties with this config fragment,
> and fdtget and mkimage -l only considers the first one:
>
> @config-SEQ {
> description = "NAME.dtb";
> fdt = "fdt-SEQ";
> firmware = "atf-1";
> loadables = "u-boot";
> fit,loadables;
> };

Yes that needs fixing, but I'll leave that case for now. It needs its own test.

>
> $ fdtget simple-bin.fit.fit /configurations/config-1 -p
> description
> fdt
> firmware
> loadables
> loadables
>
> $ fdtget simple-bin.fit.fit /configurations/config-1 loadables
> u-boot
>
> $ mkimage -l simple-bin.fit.fit
> FIT description: FIT image for U-Boot with bl31 (TF-A)
> Created: Thu Feb 24 17:36:36 2022
> Image 0 (u-boot)
> Description: U-Boot (64-bit)
> Created: Thu Feb 24 17:36:36 2022
> Type: Standalone Program
> Compression: uncompressed
> Data Size: 727192 Bytes = 710.15 KiB = 0.69 MiB
> Architecture: AArch64
> Load Address: 0x00200000
> Entry Point: unavailable
> Image 1 (atf-1)
> Description: ARM Trusted Firmware
> Created: Thu Feb 24 17:36:36 2022
> Type: Firmware
> Compression: uncompressed
> Data Size: 139342 Bytes = 136.08 KiB = 0.13 MiB
> Architecture: AArch64
> OS: ARM Trusted Firmware
> Load Address: 0x00040000
> Image 2 (atf-2)
> Description: ARM Trusted Firmware
> Created: Thu Feb 24 17:36:36 2022
> Type: Firmware
> Compression: uncompressed
> Data Size: 8024 Bytes = 7.84 KiB = 0.01 MiB
> Architecture: AArch64
> OS: ARM Trusted Firmware
> Load Address: 0xff3b0000
> Image 3 (atf-3)
> Description: ARM Trusted Firmware
> Created: Thu Feb 24 17:36:36 2022
> Type: Firmware
> Compression: uncompressed
> Data Size: 8192 Bytes = 8.00 KiB = 0.01 MiB
> Architecture: AArch64
> OS: ARM Trusted Firmware
> Load Address: 0xff8c0000
> Image 4 (fdt-1)
> Description: fdt-rk3399-gru-bob
> Created: Thu Feb 24 17:36:36 2022
> Type: Flat Device Tree
> Compression: uncompressed
> Data Size: 69392 Bytes = 67.77 KiB = 0.07 MiB
> Architecture: Unknown Architecture
> Default Configuration: 'config-1'
> Configuration 0 (config-1)
> Description: rk3399-gru-bob.dtb
> Kernel: unavailable
> Firmware: atf-1
> FDT: fdt-1
> Loadables: u-boot
>
> I didn't test if my chromebook_kevin boots in this double-loadables
> configuration, though.

I wish we could get the kevin patches applied. What on earth is going
on there? I haven't been able to test any of this on kevin.

[..]

Regards,
Simon