From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A40C433EF for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 19:18:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E2256109F for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 19:18:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 8E2256109F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=xs4all.nl Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.denx.de Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9BF83877; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 21:18:53 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=xs4all.nl Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 1852083878; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 21:18:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (sibelius.xs4all.nl [83.163.83.176]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF6C983872 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 21:18:47 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=xs4all.nl Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl Received: from localhost (bloch.sibelius.xs4all.nl [local]) by bloch.sibelius.xs4all.nl (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id cb4c448f; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 21:18:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 21:18:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Mark Kettenis To: Moiz Imtiaz Cc: sjg@chromium.org, u-boot@lists.denx.de, trini@konsulko.com, moiz.imtiaz@skyelectric.com, jehannazkhan@skyelectric.com In-Reply-To: (message from Moiz Imtiaz on Sat, 11 Sep 2021 23:19:05 +0500) Subject: Re: Problem with U-boot | Configuration Signature not being checked while booting References: Message-ID: <561452b36639d218@bloch.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.2 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean > From: Moiz Imtiaz > Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 23:19:05 +0500 > > Hi Simon, > > Thanks for the reply. I already followed the steps mentioned in > "doc/uImage.FIT/beaglebone_vboot.txt". > > >I wonder if rpi is not using the devicetree compiled with U-Boot, but > instead one provided by the earlier-stage firmware? > > Not sure, but seems like this is the case. I checked and there isn't any > dtb or dts for rpi4 (bcm2711-rpi-4-b) in arc/arm/dts in u-boot. I tried to > add the dtb and other dts dtsi > files > from the raspberry pi Linux and compile them with CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE and > CONFIG_OF_EMBED (one at a time) *but it couldn't even boot the U-Boot and > it would just give a blank screen*. I wonder why there isn't any device > tree in the U-boot repo for RPI4. Is U-boot control FDT not supported by > RPI4? The issue with the rpi4 is that the addresses of devices move around based on the version of the Raspberry Pi firmware you're using. And possibly on the amount of memory on the board as well. So U-Boot pretty much has to use the device tree passed by the firmware since the device tree in the U-Boot tree would be wrong for many combinations of firmware and hardware. Simon, this sort of thing is exactly the reason why I think the idea of having all U-Boot configuration information in a single device tree with the hardware description doesn't work everywhere.