[U-Boot] [PATCH] jetson-tk1: Set fdtfile environment variable

Alexander Graf
2016-04-13T17:50:07Z

> Am 13.04.2016 um 19:40 schrieb Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>:
>
>> On 04/13/2016 11:22 AM, Andreas F?rber wrote:
>>> Am 13.04.2016 um 17:31 schrieb Stephen Warren:
>>>> On 04/13/2016 06:55 AM, Andreas F?rber wrote:
>>>>> Am 13.04.2016 um 14:48 schrieb Andreas F?rber:
>>>>> The 4.5.0 kernel cannot cope with U-Boot's internal device tree, and the
>>>>> distro boot commands are looking for $fdtfile, so provide it to avoid
>>>>> having users supply a dumb boot.scr doing a setenv fdtfile ...; boot,
>>>>> defeating the purpose of generic EFI boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>>>> Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber <afaerber@suse.de>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> include/configs/jetson-tk1.h | 4 ++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/configs/jetson-tk1.h b/include/configs/jetson-tk1.h
>>>>> index 59dbb20..82a4be4 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/configs/jetson-tk1.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/configs/jetson-tk1.h
>>>>> @@ -63,6 +63,10 @@
>>>>> /* General networking support */
>>>>> #define CONFIG_CMD_DHCP
>>>>>
>>>>> +#define BOARD_EXTRA_ENV_SETTINGS \
>>>>> + "fdtfile=tegra124-jetson-tk1.dtb\0" \
>>>>> + ""
>>>>
>>>> Is there any more intelligent solution than doing this for each board?
>>>
>>> Yes, the distro boot scripts shouldn't be using $fdtfile unconditionally
>>> since it's not guaranteed to be set. The model is that boot scripts
>>> determine the FDT filename, and $fdtfile is an optional override.
>>>
>>> It looks like the hard-coded use of $fdtfile was added into the EFI
>>> path, which I didn't get to review, and which shouldn't be enabled by
>>> default but unfortunately is.
>>
>> As Alex described, you're entirely missing the point here.
>
> Well, that's because the point you're making is re: the benefits of EFI, but that's not the point the patch is addressing nor the point I'm objecting to. The patch addresses the need for all boards to set $fdtfile. That is what I'm arguing about. The benefits of EFI aren't relevant to this discussion.
>
>> The EFI bootloader is an alternative to a board-specific script, not an
>> addition. The loading logic is all in the U-Boot environment and it
>> needs to know what device tree to use without the user telling it:
>>
>> a) master branch searches for $fdtfile in various prefixes on the
>> current boot device partition.
>>
>> a') We're testing a variation where we load $fdtfile from a different
>> partition on the same device (i.e., from ext4/btrfs rather that fat).
>>
>> b) A pending patch exposes the internal U-Boot device tree.
>>
>> The former is what we need to boot today. For openSUSE we get the .dtb
>> files from rpm packages built from the kernel.
>>
>> The latter would match the Tianocore/Aptio model where all board info
>> comes from the firmware exclusively. As reported elsewhere it does not
>> yet work on this board with your DT though; you yourselves discussed
>> about differing cell sizes and node names.
>>
>> Now during my EFI testing I had to repeatedly remember to interrupt
>> U-Boot and type:
>>
>> setenv fdtfile tegra124-jetson-tk1.dtb
>
> You can always run "saveenv" here. Admittedly it's not a nice user-experience to have to do that, but it's a workaround that would work today.
>
>> boot
>>
>> until I got so annoyed that I figured out this patch to make it permanent.
>>
>> The hikey and some other boards got their variable renamed to fit
>> standardized $fdtfile, for dragonboard410c I sent a similar patch.
>>
>> My above question was more precisely: Can we automate supplying the
>> $fdtfile at tegra124-common.h or tegra-common.h level instead of as in
>> this patch manually at jetson-tk1.h level where I happened to notice?
>
> As I mentioned in my other reply, it would be better if the EFI logic handled this, rather than requiring every board to solve the problem over and over.
>
>> The Raspberry Pi has been supplying $fdtfile just fine (modulo the rev
>> B), so I don't understand why you'd be against it now.
>
> I have no objection to boards setting $fdtfile where they need to. Some U-Boot boards support multiple HW, so it's a base requirement that the code supply $fdtfile since there's no other way to know what the correct value is. Other boards only operate on a single piece of HW, and we shouldn't burden every config header (or other board-specific code/...) with defining this value since there's a reasonable default that core code could use. Rather, let's deal with it in some core code (not per-SoC, but U-Boot-wide), for example using the code snippet I posted in my other response.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Andreas
>>
>> P.S. Without a standardized $fdtfile you can't have a standard boot.scr
>> either, so the generic mechanism becomes moot.
>
> That's not true. the model there is to use ${soc} ${board} and ${boardver} to construct it. I thought that was documented in doc/README.distro, but perhaps I only mentioned it in commit descriptions and scripts that build boot.scr, e.g.:
>
> https://github.com/NVIDIA/tegra-uboot-scripts/blob/master/gen-uboot-script.py#L133

So do all systems follow this scheme? We need to make sure that fdtfile ends up with the same value as what arch/arm{,64}/boot/dtb build and install.

If not we can probably add a define for the distro uboot variables to set fdtfile according to your scheme for boards where it gets used, so tegra for example would only need to define that define :). Or we could leave it as fallback for distro boot as you suggested.

Alex