Message-ID: <CAK7LNATyD-PeNbaLTjJmU9=koqqE+V6QvFe09c2VrXopWvjpcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:12:07 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
        U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@...ts.denx.de>,
        Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
        Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Terrell <terrelln@...com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] arm64: boot: Support Flat Image Tree

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 1:03 PM Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 1:31 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Laurent,
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 4:29 PM Laurent Pinchart
> > <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 10:13:59PM +0900, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 11:38 PM Laurent Pinchart
> > > > <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 10:27:23PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 05:34:01PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 08:54:42PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > Add a script which produces a Flat Image Tree (FIT), a single file
> > > > > > > > containing the built kernel and associated devicetree files.
> > > > > > > > Compression defaults to gzip which gives a good balance of size and
> > > > > > > > performance.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The files compress from about 86MB to 24MB using this approach.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The FIT can be used by bootloaders which support it, such as U-Boot
> > > > > > > > and Linuxboot. It permits automatic selection of the correct
> > > > > > > > devicetree, matching the compatible string of the running board with
> > > > > > > > the closest compatible string in the FIT. There is no need for
> > > > > > > > filenames or other workarounds.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Add a 'make image.fit' build target for arm64, as well. Use
> > > > > > > > FIT_COMPRESSION to select a different algorithm.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The FIT can be examined using 'dumpimage -l'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This features requires pylibfdt (use 'pip install libfdt'). It also
> > > > > > > > requires compression utilities for the algorithm being used. Supported
> > > > > > > > compression options are the same as the Image.xxx files. For now there
> > > > > > > > is no way to change the compression other than by editing the rule for
> > > > > > > > $(obj)/image.fit
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While FIT supports a ramdisk / initrd, no attempt is made to support
> > > > > > > > this here, since it must be built separately from the Linux build.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FIT images are very useful, so I think this is a very welcome addition
> > > > > > > to the kernel build system. It can get tricky though: given the
> > > > > > > versatile nature of FIT images, there can't be any
> > > > > > > one-size-fits-them-all solution to build them, and striking the right
> > > > > > > balance between what makes sense for the kernel and the features that
> > > > > > > users may request will probably lead to bikeshedding. As we all love
> > > > > > > bikeshedding, I thought I would start selfishly, with a personal use
> > > > > > > case :-) This isn't a yak-shaving request though, I don't see any reason
> > > > > > > to delay merging this series.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have you envisioned building FIT images with a subset of DTBs, or adding
> > > > > > > DTBOs ? Both would be fairly trivial extensions to this script by
> > > > > > > extending the supported command line arguments. It would perhaps be more
> > > > > > > difficult to integrate in the kernel build system though. This leads me
> > > > > > > to a second question: would you consider merging extensions to this
> > > > > > > script if they are not used by the kernel build system, but meant for
> > > > > > > users who manually invoke the script ? More generally, is the script
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We'd also be interested in some customization, though in a different way.
> > > > > > We imagine having a rule file that says X compatible string should map
> > > > > > to A base DTB, plus B and C DTBO for the configuration section. The base
> > > > > > DTB would carry all common elements of some device, while the DTBOs
> > > > > > carry all the possible second source components, like different display
> > > > > > panels or MIPI cameras for instance. This could drastically reduce the
> > > > > > size of FIT images in ChromeOS by deduplicating all the common stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you envision the "mapping" compatible string mapping to a config
> > > > > section in the FIT image, that would bundle the base DTB and the DTBOs ?
> > > >
> > > > That's exactly the idea. The mapping compatible string could be untied
> > > > from the base board's compatible string if needed (which we probably do).
> > > >
> > > > So something like:
> > > >
> > > > config {
> > > >     config-1 {
> > > >         compatible = "google,krane-sku0";
> > > >         fdt = "krane-baseboard", "krane-sku0-overlay";
> > > >     };
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > With "krane-sku0-overlay" being an overlay that holds the differences
> > > > between the SKUs, in this case the display panel and MIPI camera (not
> > > > upstreamed) that applies to SKU0 in particular.
> > >
> > > The kernel DT makefiles already contain information on what overlays to
> > > apply to what base boards, in order to test the overlays and produce
> > > "full" DTBs. Maybe that information could be leveraged to create the
> > > configurations in the FIT image ?
> >
> > Although the "full" DTBs created may only be a subset of all possible
> > combinations (I believe Rob just started with creating one "full" DTB
> > for each overlay, cfr. the additions I made in commit a09c3e105a208580
> > ("arm64: dts: renesas: Apply overlays to base dtbs")), that could
> > definitely be a start.
> >
> > Now, since the kernel build system already creates "full" DTBs, does
> > that mean that all of the base DTBs, overlays, and "full" DTBs will
> > end up in the FIT image?
>
> I suppose we could add an option to the packing tool to be able to _not_
> add the "full" DTBs if they can also be assembled with a base DTB and
> overlays. Think of it as a firmware compatibility option: if the firmware
> supports overlays, then you almost always want the deconstructed parts,
> not the fully assembled ones. Vice versa.
>
> If we don't we could end up with two configurations that have the same
> compatible string?


Right.

We would end up with such situations because applying
an overlay does not change the compatible string.



With this code in arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/Makefile:

k3-am642-tqma64xxl-mbax4xxl-sdcard-dtbs := \
      k3-am642-tqma64xxl-mbax4xxl.dtb k3-am64-tqma64xxl-mbax4xxl-sdcard.dtbo
k3-am642-tqma64xxl-mbax4xxl-wlan-dtbs := \
      k3-am642-tqma64xxl-mbax4xxl.dtb k3-am64-tqma64xxl-mbax4xxl-wlan.dtbo




$ fdtdump  arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am642-tqma64xxl-mbax4xxl-sdcard.dtb
2>/dev/null| head -n15 | tail -n2
    model = "TQ-Systems TQMa64xxL SoM on MBax4xxL carrier board";
    compatible = "tq,am642-tqma6442l-mbax4xxl", "tq,am642-tqma6442l",
"ti,am642";


$ fdtdump  arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am642-tqma64xxl-mbax4xxl-wlan.dtb
2>/dev/null| head -n15 | tail -n2
    model = "TQ-Systems TQMa64xxL SoM on MBax4xxL carrier board";
    compatible = "tq,am642-tqma6442l-mbax4xxl", "tq,am642-tqma6442l",
"ti,am642";





These two go into image.fit, but one of them is completely dead
since there is no way to distinguish them.


$ fdtdump  arch/arm64/boot/image.fit

        ...

        conf-10 {
            compatible = "tq,am642-tqma6442l-mbax4xxl",
"tq,am642-tqma6442l", "ti,am642";
            description = "TQ-Systems TQMa64xxL SoM on MBax4xxL carrier board";
            fdt = "fdt-10";
            kernel = "kernel";
        };

        ...

        conf-25 {
            compatible = "tq,am642-tqma6442l-mbax4xxl",
"tq,am642-tqma6442l", "ti,am642";
            description = "TQ-Systems TQMa64xxL SoM on MBax4xxL carrier board";
            fdt = "fdt-25";
            kernel = "kernel";
        };





I agree with Chen-Yu.

FIT should not include full DTBs.

Bootloaders should assemble the final DTB
from base and overlays on-the-fly.


The FIT spec allows the "fdt" property to list
multiple image nodes.


o config-1
 |- description = "configuration description"
 |- kernel = "kernel sub-node unit name"
 |- fdt = "fdt sub-node unit-name" [, "fdt overlay sub-node unit-name", ...]
 |- loadables = "loadables sub-node unit-name"
 |- script = "
 |- compatible = "vendor











>
> ChenYu
>
>
> > Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> >
> >                         Geert
> >
> > --
> > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
> >
> > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> >                                 -- Linus Torvalds



--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Powered by blists - more mailing lists