Re: [PATCH v7 5/5] iot2050: Enable watchdog support, but do not auto-start it

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3265 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:59:35PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 13.09.21 16:56, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:31:37PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 13.09.21 14:34, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 09:57:45AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> On 11.09.21 02:10, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 04:24:05PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This allows to use the watchdog in custom scripts but does not enforce
> >>>>>> that the OS has to support it as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry for the late reply.  This causes CI to fail:
> >>>>> Building current source for 1 boards (1 thread, 16 jobs per thread)
> >>>>>    aarch64:  +   iot2050
> >>>>> +(iot2050) WARNING ATF file bl31.bin NOT found, resulting binary is non-functional
> >>>>> +(iot2050) WARNING OPTEE file bl32.bin NOT found, resulting might be non-functional
> >>>>> +(iot2050) binman: Filename 'k3-rti-wdt.fw' not found in input path (.,/home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot,board/siemens/iot2050,arch/arm/dts) (cwd='/tmp/iot2050/.bm-work/iot2050')
> >>>>> +(iot2050) make[1]: *** [all] Error 1
> >>>>> +(iot2050) make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
> >>>>>     0    0    1 /1              iot2050
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And needs to be handled like ATF/OPTEE/etc where CI can build but throw
> >>>>> a "THIS WILL NOT RUN CORRECTLY" type warning to the user.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I was about to sent an update anyway - time passed, and now we even have
> >>>> support for the next generation integrated from the beginning. But
> >>>> related upstream DT changes are not yet merged.
> >>>
> >>> OK.
> >>>
> >>>> But back to this issue: How can CI be fed with all those required
> >>>> binaries? The build makes no sense in their absence.
> >>>
> >>> To be clearer, CI isn't fed all of the binaries, we just use /dev/null
> >>> in that case and try and make it clear it won't boot.  K3 isn't a good
> >>> example here, but I think sunxi uses binman and handles this same class
> >>> of problem?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm seeing it additionally carrying a "missing-msg" property, but that
> >> alone (even with missing-blob-help updated) does not make the build
> >> pass. It rather seems I'm missing some "allow_missing" property for that
> >> image, but even reading the code gives no clue yet how to achieve that.
> >> Yet another binman mystery.
> > 
> > You might also need a new file in tools/binman/etype/ ?  Also, it will
> > have a non-zero exit status still, but with a value of 101 which we
> > check for and know that's "binary blob missing" and so OK to allow CI to
> > pass on.
> > 
> 
> Err, that doesn't sound like binman is making my life easier. Why can't
> a I simple do something like
> 
> 	k3-rti-wdt-firmware {
> 		type = "blob";
> 		load = <0x82000000>;
> 		blob {
> 			filename = CONFIG_WDT_K3_RTI_FW_FILE;
> 			missing-msg = "k3-rti-wdt-firmware";
> 			allow_missing;
> 		};
> 	};
> 
> and be done?

Sounds like a good idea, and I'm not quite sure what's missing to go
from where we are today to there.  I might be missing something myself.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]