| Message ID | 561f9d0ee96ebb6cd674042f269f280ab68fbbac.1708705118.git.michal.simek@amd.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 3d3cb2857ed3b40637efc2fb79315b97e154120d |
| Delegated to: | Michal Simek |
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm64: zynqmp: Do not describe u-boot.itb if SPL is disabled | expand |
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty > much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains > all images inside. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > --- > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 > --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c > +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { > .image_index = 1, > }, > #endif > -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) > +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? Cheers /Ilias > { > .image_type_id = XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID, > .fw_name = u"XILINX-UBOOT", > -- > 2.36.1 >
On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty >> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains >> all images inside. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >> --- >> >> board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 >> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c >> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { >> .image_index = 1, >> }, >> #endif >> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) >> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) > > What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is doing to be defined. But I found handling in the code like this. 36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE 37 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) { which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty. Thanks, Michal
Hi Michal Apologies for the late reply On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:48, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: > > > > On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty > >> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains > >> all images inside. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > >> --- > >> > >> board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > >> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 > >> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c > >> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > >> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { > >> .image_index = 1, > >> }, > >> #endif > >> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) > >> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) > > > > What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? > > Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks > that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is > doing to be defined. > > But I found handling in the code like this. > > 36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE > 37 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) { > > which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in > set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty. Yes, I think that's ok. The problem is that if we merge this as-is, we would have to disable CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT to make this work, which is a bit misleading Cheers /Ilias > > Thanks, > Michal
On 05.03.24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty >> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains >> all images inside. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >> --- >> >> board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 >> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c >> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { >> .image_index = 1, >> }, >> #endif >> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) >> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) > > What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME depends on SPL_FS_EXT4 || SPL_FS_FAT || SPL_FS_SQUASHFS || SPL_SEMIHOSTING. So it is only defined if SPL could load a file. CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME defaults to a non-blank name. If a user provides an invalid name, SPL will not be able to load the file. What is wrong here is to assume that *.itb has to be load as a file. We can configure U-Boot SPL to load the itb from a raw partition. The check might be too restrictive. Best regards Heinrich > > Cheers > /Ilias >> { >> .image_type_id = XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID, >> .fw_name = u"XILINX-UBOOT", >> -- >> 2.36.1 >>
On 3/12/24 13:29, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 05.03.24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty >>> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains >>> all images inside. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>> --- >>> >>> board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 >>> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { >>> .image_index = 1, >>> }, >>> #endif >>> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) >>> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && >>> defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) >> >> What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? > > CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME depends on SPL_FS_EXT4 || SPL_FS_FAT || > SPL_FS_SQUASHFS || SPL_SEMIHOSTING. So it is only defined if SPL could > load a file. > > CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME defaults to a non-blank name. If a user > provides an invalid name, SPL will not be able to load the file. > > What is wrong here is to assume that *.itb has to be load as a file. We > can configure U-Boot SPL to load the itb from a raw partition. > > The check might be too restrictive. I am not sure I fully follow what you are saying here. All current dfu rules via set_dfu_alt_info() (board/xilinx/zynqmp/zynqmp.c) are using CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME for second location description. Obviously in qspi boot mode it is description for RAW. In sd one it is description with using fat. Description for two guids make only sense in connection to using U-Boot SPL only. Because if SPL is not used likely you are going to use standard Xilinx solution which is pretty much all in one inside boot.bin which is described already. This patch is just trying to get rid of description for second firmware if non SPL bootflow is used because pointer is likely not correct. Thanks, Michal
On 3/12/24 07:14, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > Hi Michal > > Apologies for the late reply > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:48, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty >>>> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains >>>> all images inside. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>>> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 >>>> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>>> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { >>>> .image_index = 1, >>>> }, >>>> #endif >>>> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) >>>> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) >>> >>> What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? >> >> Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks >> that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is >> doing to be defined. >> >> But I found handling in the code like this. >> >> 36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE >> 37 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) { >> >> which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in >> set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty. > > Yes, I think that's ok. The problem is that if we merge this as-is, we > would have to disable CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT to make this work, which is a > bit misleading As Heinrich said not just this if you want to do it like this. I think you will simply disable the whole SPL which will disable this symbol too. But from my perspective SPL payload name is driving this option. Data can end up on partition or in raw mode but for dfu you need to use the name. Thanks, Michal
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 17:55, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: > > > > On 3/12/24 07:14, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Hi Michal > > > > Apologies for the late reply > > > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:48, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty > >>>> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains > >>>> all images inside. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > >>>> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 > >>>> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c > >>>> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > >>>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { > >>>> .image_index = 1, > >>>> }, > >>>> #endif > >>>> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) > >>>> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) > >>> > >>> What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? > >> > >> Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks > >> that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is > >> doing to be defined. > >> > >> But I found handling in the code like this. > >> > >> 36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE > >> 37 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) { > >> > >> which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in > >> set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty. > > > > Yes, I think that's ok. The problem is that if we merge this as-is, we > > would have to disable CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT to make this work, which is a > > bit misleading > > As Heinrich said not just this if you want to do it like this. > I think you will simply disable the whole SPL which will disable this symbol too. > But from my perspective SPL payload name is driving this option. Data can end up > on partition or in raw mode but for dfu you need to use the name. Yes, but isn't SPL selected by the Kconfig automatically? I can't seem to be able to disable it for the kria platforms Thanks /Ilias > > Thanks, > Michal > >
On 3/12/24 20:12, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 17:55, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/12/24 07:14, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >>> Hi Michal >>> >>> Apologies for the late reply >>> >>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:48, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty >>>>>> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains >>>>>> all images inside. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>>>>> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 >>>>>> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>>>>> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>>>>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { >>>>>> .image_index = 1, >>>>>> }, >>>>>> #endif >>>>>> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) >>>>>> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) >>>>> >>>>> What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? >>>> >>>> Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks >>>> that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is >>>> doing to be defined. >>>> >>>> But I found handling in the code like this. >>>> >>>> 36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE >>>> 37 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) { >>>> >>>> which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in >>>> set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty. >>> >>> Yes, I think that's ok. The problem is that if we merge this as-is, we >>> would have to disable CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT to make this work, which is a >>> bit misleading >> >> As Heinrich said not just this if you want to do it like this. >> I think you will simply disable the whole SPL which will disable this symbol too. >> But from my perspective SPL payload name is driving this option. Data can end up >> on partition or in raw mode but for dfu you need to use the name. > > Yes, but isn't SPL selected by the Kconfig automatically? I can't seem > to be able to disable it for the kria platforms Not in upstream but via your/AMD build in meta-ts. Thanks, Michal
On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 08:42, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: > > > > On 3/12/24 20:12, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 17:55, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 3/12/24 07:14, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > >>> Hi Michal > >>> > >>> Apologies for the late reply > >>> > >>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:48, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>>>> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty > >>>>>> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains > >>>>>> all images inside. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > >>>>>> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c > >>>>>> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > >>>>>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { > >>>>>> .image_index = 1, > >>>>>> }, > >>>>>> #endif > >>>>>> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) > >>>>>> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) > >>>>> > >>>>> What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? > >>>> > >>>> Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks > >>>> that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is > >>>> doing to be defined. > >>>> > >>>> But I found handling in the code like this. > >>>> > >>>> 36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE > >>>> 37 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) { > >>>> > >>>> which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in > >>>> set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty. > >>> > >>> Yes, I think that's ok. The problem is that if we merge this as-is, we > >>> would have to disable CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT to make this work, which is a > >>> bit misleading > >> > >> As Heinrich said not just this if you want to do it like this. > >> I think you will simply disable the whole SPL which will disable this symbol too. > >> But from my perspective SPL payload name is driving this option. Data can end up > >> on partition or in raw mode but for dfu you need to use the name. > > > > Yes, but isn't SPL selected by the Kconfig automatically? I can't seem > > to be able to disable it for the kria platforms > > Not in upstream but via your/AMD build in meta-ts. > > Thanks, > Michal > Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
Hi Michal On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 09:01, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 08:42, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3/12/24 20:12, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 17:55, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 3/12/24 07:14, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > >>> Hi Michal > > >>> > > >>> Apologies for the late reply > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:48, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > >>>>>> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty > > >>>>>> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains > > >>>>>> all images inside. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > > >>>>>> --- > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- > > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > > >>>>>> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 > > >>>>>> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c > > >>>>>> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > > >>>>>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { > > >>>>>> .image_index = 1, > > >>>>>> }, > > >>>>>> #endif > > >>>>>> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) > > >>>>>> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? > > >>>> > > >>>> Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks > > >>>> that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is > > >>>> doing to be defined. > > >>>> > > >>>> But I found handling in the code like this. > > >>>> > > >>>> 36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE > > >>>> 37 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) { > > >>>> > > >>>> which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in > > >>>> set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty. > > >>> > > >>> Yes, I think that's ok. The problem is that if we merge this as-is, we > > >>> would have to disable CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT to make this work, which is a > > >>> bit misleading > > >> > > >> As Heinrich said not just this if you want to do it like this. > > >> I think you will simply disable the whole SPL which will disable this symbol too. > > >> But from my perspective SPL payload name is driving this option. Data can end up > > >> on partition or in raw mode but for dfu you need to use the name. > > > > > > Yes, but isn't SPL selected by the Kconfig automatically? I can't seem > > > to be able to disable it for the kria platforms > > > > Not in upstream but via your/AMD build in meta-ts. > > > > Thanks, > > Michal > > > > Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> Trying to compile xilinx_zynqmp_kria_defconfig with CONFIG_SPL unset blows up with HOSTCC scripts/dtc/dtc-lexer.lex.o HOSTCC scripts/dtc/dtc-parser.tab.o COPY u-boot.its cp: missing destination file operand after 'u-boot.its' Try 'cp --help' for more information. make: *** [Makefile:1405: u-boot.its] Error 1 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... HOSTLD scripts/dtc/dtc Cheers /Ilias
Hi, On 3/14/24 09:34, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > Hi Michal > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 09:01, Ilias Apalodimas > <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 08:42, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/12/24 20:12, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 17:55, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/12/24 07:14, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >>>>>> Hi Michal >>>>>> >>>>>> Apologies for the late reply >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:48, Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>>>>> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty >>>>>>>>> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains >>>>>>>>> all images inside. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>>>>>>>> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>>>>>>>> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c >>>>>>>>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { >>>>>>>>> .image_index = 1, >>>>>>>>> }, >>>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>>>> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) >>>>>>>>> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks >>>>>>> that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is >>>>>>> doing to be defined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I found handling in the code like this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE >>>>>>> 37 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) { >>>>>>> >>>>>>> which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in >>>>>>> set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I think that's ok. The problem is that if we merge this as-is, we >>>>>> would have to disable CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT to make this work, which is a >>>>>> bit misleading >>>>> >>>>> As Heinrich said not just this if you want to do it like this. >>>>> I think you will simply disable the whole SPL which will disable this symbol too. >>>>> But from my perspective SPL payload name is driving this option. Data can end up >>>>> on partition or in raw mode but for dfu you need to use the name. >>>> >>>> Yes, but isn't SPL selected by the Kconfig automatically? I can't seem >>>> to be able to disable it for the kria platforms >>> >>> Not in upstream but via your/AMD build in meta-ts. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Michal >>> >> >> Reviewed-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > > Trying to compile xilinx_zynqmp_kria_defconfig with CONFIG_SPL unset > blows up with > > HOSTCC scripts/dtc/dtc-lexer.lex.o > HOSTCC scripts/dtc/dtc-parser.tab.o > COPY u-boot.its > cp: missing destination file operand after 'u-boot.its' > Try 'cp --help' for more information. > make: *** [Makefile:1405: u-boot.its] Error 1 > make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > HOSTLD scripts/dtc/dtc That's because u-boot.itb is selected in .config as target binary. Because that entry is string, setup by default when SPL is enabled via defconfig. Then when you disable SPL via defconfig default setting is not changed and is still at origin value. CONFIG_BUILD_TARGET="u-boot.itb" If you do sed -i '/CONFIG_SPL/d' configs/xilinx_zynqmp_kria_defconfig you will get that CONFIG_BUILD_TARGET="" which is correct value without SPL. Thanks, Michal
On 2/23/24 17:18, Michal Simek wrote: > There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty > much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains > all images inside. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> > --- > > board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 > --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c > +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { > .image_index = 1, > }, > #endif > -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) > +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) > { > .image_type_id = XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID, > .fw_name = u"XILINX-UBOOT", Applied. M
diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644 --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = { .image_index = 1, }, #endif -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME) { .image_type_id = XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID, .fw_name = u"XILINX-UBOOT",
There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains all images inside. Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> --- board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)