All,
If you normally attend the Devicetree evolution call,
Please fill out this poll:
https://doodle.com/meeting/organize/id/mepQEZNa
Thanks,
Bill
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
All,
I have recordings and automated transcripts of all the meetings in 2021.
So far I have not made these public.
*** Is there any objection to making them public? ***
I don't imagine many people will go back and look but it is sometimes
nice to know that you could.
Please let me know if you have any concern. I will take no action until
next week.
Thanks,
Bill
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
All,
Today we discussed Simon's slides [1] about DTB signatures.
Simmons points (as I understand them)
* U-boot has used signatures in FIT format for years
* The technique used for FIT is actually generic to any DTB
* Such a signed DTB could still be passed to kernel
* even an old one like 4.4
* Suggest we adopt this for signing individual DTBs
Discussion:
* General interest in idea, no strong objections
* multiple people want to see the worked example to know for sure
* Which nodes do we want to sign?
* Should we sign in a way that allows the kernel to recheck
the signature?
* would require we exclude from hashing anything that will get fixed
up by u-boot at run time, such as mac addrs and chosen
* If u-boot applies any non-trivial DTBO's, the kernel won't be able
to check the result, is it worth the effort for the simple case?
* If we really want the kernel to verify, we should pass on a set of
dtbs: a base and set of overlays, one overlay would be the fixup
data. kernel could check each dtb and then verify that fixup data
only touches the stuff that it should
* Joakim worked with a student to do things very similar to what Simon
is talking about. see [2]
Other comments:
* verifying 10 rsa signatures on 10 hashes is more expensive than
verifying 1 rsa signature of 10 strong hashes. (RSA signatures on the
actual data itself would be VERY expensive.)
* We should be careful about boot time in all these discussions.
* If all the DTB data is internal to u-boot, just use FIT and have
one signature for all the various hashes.
* Is it OK to use the "exploded" rsa public key data in all cases?
* Is the exploded for faster or just less code?
* Can we supply the plan/std pub key AND the exploded version?
* implementations that care about speed and code size can use the
exploded ver, while things that need to standard key structure
can use that. We would need a offline tool to verify both.
* UEFI secure boot will have public keys installed.
Can we explode the key on install for internal storage?
Actions:
* Simon to work up an example of signing just one dtb
We also introduced the topics of DT lifecycle at firmware level:
A) Source level lifecycle, keeping things in sync
A1) Golden source repo
A2: Golden source for platforms that opt-in
A3) auto checker but manual fixup
A4) remove DT from sub projects and rely on B2 model
Pretty sure this is a NOPE!
A5) do nothing and trust platforms maintainers to do the right
thing (despite evidence that many are not currently).
B) runtime life-cycle
B1) each component has its own DTB
B2) DTB is only present in "first" firmware and is
passed along from there
B3) mixture of B1 & B2 at different firmware stages
Actions:
* Bill to make slides so we can discuss properly on Oct 18.
[1]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PA5aQ2rISOrdNbqElfIWXaSrCG28Rqx4/view?usp=…
[2]
https://github.com/marianomarciello/Device_Tree_Verification/tree/e0b2fc989…
Thanks,
Bill
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
Hello,
We have our DT evo call in just a bit.
Today I would like to talk about DT lifecycle and flow "with in" firmware.
Up till this point we have focused on firmware to "OS layer" hand off.
That topic is not done but I think we need to start exploring the flow
within firmware as people seem to have very different views.
We need to figure out what models are valid (2 seems plenty) and how we
can talk about them.
I don't have slides today but we can start the discussion.
Thanks,
Bill
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
Hi,
Following the EFI capsule revert, here* is a contribution to
understand the context in which we designed the patch set. (everyone
is a commenter, please be mindful).
The presentation explores booting, with more details for the Arm
context, pre and post U-Boot. On Arm, pre-U-Boot is shaped after
Firmware Framework-A and other interfaces. There is a similar approach
in RISC-V with OpenSBI.
There is nothing to agree on: many elements of the presentation are
specifications for the Arm ecosystem. The purpose is to reach common
understanding of those for rest of the journey.
Careful reading is required because as we all know very well the
topic, we may skip over stuff and miss key elements that may have
changed since you last checked. So I'll attract your attention on:
Slide 9: there can be multiple device trees in a Trusted Firmware FIP
(nothing to agree on...)
Slide 11: roles and responsibilities of firmware go far beyond booting
and OTA. CoreBoot and SPL will have to take those into account in the
future.
Slide 17: there is a new boot flow based on "give-me-my-initrd" UEFI protocol
Slide 24: when the firmware is stored on Secure Storage which is a
common case for products, U-Boot/Linux have absolutely no means to
perform the update (see notes for details).
Slide 28: there are plenty of keys needed, the U-Boot and U-Boot
updater can be different; as well as all firmware components.
I acknowledge that the presentation is hard to read without enough
speaker notes or myself talking to it. Let's say that I prefer to keep
the ball rolling before we can actually program a call: could you send
me in private message your preferred day of the week and best time
(with TZ) for such a thing?
Cordially,
--
François-Frédéric Ozog
*) https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1AHTf9xMNqPXbiDLkBpoKt45UTjV8s34Jdtm…
Hi Paul
Too posting because I think we also need to address this at a higher level.
i think we discussed this topic quite a while back. I may be wrong but it
may be Bill Mills who proposed to have an eeprom on the extensions that the
carrier board can use to detect and fetch proper overlay. Another way would
be that the contract between the extension board and the carrier board
includes an i2c accessible storage to fetch an overlay that would identify
the board and give all details. Bottom line, a software only solution seems
not entirely satisfying.
In that suboptimal case, U-Boot shall be able to assemble a DT for itself
and another for OS (may be same in some cases) through scripting. And in
this case, come your questions below
.
Le sam. 18 sept. 2021 à 01:21, Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu) <paulliu(a)debian.org>
a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
>
> I have some questions about how to implement extension board usage.
> My case is on imx8mm-cl-iot-gate. It can add three different types of
> extension boards.
> One of the extension boards is SPI extension which have 3 empty slots.
> And you can add
> some small boards onto it. One of them is a "TPM2" module.
>
>
> My first question is if I want to use tpm2 in U-boot for measured boot.
> How to implement this right? Currently I just modify the dts used by
> U-boot to let it drive
> the extension board. And let it drive the TPM. But it is not good for
> upstreaming because
> when other types of extension boards installed then it is not working.
> Where to implement this? What is the best practice of this?
> The second question is about extension manager.
> I have read the extension.rst. I think I'll implement this anyway
> because then
> I can have a command to query what type of extension boards I have.
> And if the extension board is the 3 slots one. I can then detect which
> slot is the TPM.
> I'll implement this anyway because the "extension" command is convenient
> for users.
> But it seems to me that it only solves the problem for Linux kernel.
> It can apply a DTB Overlay to Linux DTB to let Linux knows we have that
> extension board.
> But it is too late for U-boot itself, right?
>
>
> The third question is I'm also dong SystemReady IR certificate. That means
> the dtb for Linux is directly provided by U-boot. We use U-boot dtb
> directly to Linux
> kernel. In this case, how to modify that dts dynamically to feed to the
> Linux kernel by
> the extension manager?
> What is the best practice if I want to use U-boot dts for Linux in
> implementation?
>
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> Yours,
> Paul
>
>
> --
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Business Development*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
All,
Today is the first day of the Linux Plumbers Conference.
I suspect we will not have quorum.
However since I did not cancel before now, I will be on the bridge.
Thanks,
Bill
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
Hi,
this mail just to inform you that there is a plan to support native
building of PE/COFF for aarch64 and in particular to support SBAT for
shim.efi.
It is seen possible to deliver this by the end of October (this is just an
early estimate).
Cordially
FF
--
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Business Development*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
All,
Monday Sept 6 is a US Holiday so I am canceling the call this week.
Thanks,
Bill
--
Bill Mills
Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro
+1-240-643-0836
TZ: US Eastern
Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur
Hi,
Trying to respond to a U-Boot digest manually, please accept apologies
as I don't know how to do it properly...
>On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 06:43:23PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:24:08AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 06:12:20PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:26:10AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>> > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 05:18:16PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:00:45AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 03:58:10PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I noticed that there is a fallback to the u-boot device tree for linux
>> > > > > > > (esp. EFI boot) if no other device tree was found, see [1]. It seems this
>> > > > > > > is working fine for imx devices, for example, where you can just boot a
>> > > > > > > stock installer iso via EFI. It will just work and it is quite a nice
>> > > > > > > feature as a fallback.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Now for the layerscape architecture, the ls1028a in my case, things are
>> > > > > > > more difficult because the bindings differ between u-boot and linux - one
>> > > > > > > which comes to mind is DSA and ethernet.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Which begs the general question, is it encouraged to have both bindings
>> > > > > > > diverge? To me it seems, that most bindings in u-boot are ad-hoc and there
>> > > > > > > is no real review or alignment but just added as needed, which is ok if
>> > > > > > > they are local to u-boot. But since they are nowadays passed to linux
>> > > > > > > (by default!) I'm not so sure anymore.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > OTOH The whole structure around a .dts{,i} and -u-boot.dtsi looks like
>> > > > > > > they should (could?) be shared between linux and u-boot.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -michael
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/u-boot/v2021.10-rc2/source/common/board_r.c#L471
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The U-Boot device tree is supposed to be able to be passed on to Linux
>> > > > > > and Just Work. The bindings are not supposed to be different between
>> > > > > > the two (except for when we take the binding while it's being hashed out
>> > > > > > upstream BUT THEN RESYNCED).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You might need to spell that out a bit clearer.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You are saying that both U-Boot and Linux are allowed to have their own
>> > > > > custom properties (like 'u-boot,dm-spl' for U-Boot, and 'managed = "in-band-status"'
>> > > > > for Linux), as long as the device tree files themselves are in sync, and
>> > > > > the subset of the device tree blob understood by Linux (i.e. the U-Boot
>> > > > > blob sans the U-Boot specifics) is compatible with the Linux DT blob?
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't know what about the Linux example makes it Linux specific. But
>> > > > yes, 'u-boot,dm-spl' is clearly in our namespace and should be ignored
>> > > > by Linux. The whole reason we have the -u-boot.dtsi automatic drop-in
>> > > > logic (as much as it can be used is that device trees are device trees
>> > > ^
>> > > I don't think this parenthesis ever closes...
>> >
>> > Ah, whoops. Should have been "(as much as it can be used)" because it
>> > does get #included instead in some cases, for reasons.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > and describe the hardware and developers don't need to write a device
>> > > > tree for Linux and a device tree for U-Boot and a device tree for
>> > > > FreeBSD and ... So yes, you're supposed to use the device tree for a
>> > > ^
>> > > so I never get the answer to "the whole reason is...".
>> > >
>> > > > platform and it works here and there and every where.
>> > >
>> > > The fact that only Linux uses it makes it Linux specific.
>> > >
>> > > > > To expand even further on that, it means we should put 'managed = "in-band-status"'
>> > > > > in U-Boot, which is a Linux phylink device tree property, even if U-Boot
>> > > > > does not use phylink?
>> > > >
>> > > > We should be able to drop in the device trees from Linux and use them.
>> > > > Custodians should be re-syncing them periodically. Some are, even.
>> > >
>> > > Are you ready to take up device tree bindings for PTP timers, PCIe root
>> > > complex event collectors, cascaded interrupt controllers, things which
>> > > U-Boot will never ever need to support?
>> > >
>> > > At least in Linux there is a policy to not add device tree nodes that do
>> > > not have drivers. Is the same policy not true for U-Boot? At least your
>> > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl does have the same "check for DT compatible
>> > > documentation" section as Linux. You might consider removing it if you
>> > > want people to not strip the DTs they submit to U-Boot.
>> > >
>> > > And why do we even maintain the device tree bindings in Linux at all?
>> > > It seems rather counter-productive for both ends to do that, if it is
>> > > expected that the kernel works with DT blobs provided by third parties too,
>> > > and if all third parties need to resync with it (there are other boot
>> > > loaders too beyond U-Boot, and other kernels beyond Linux). Somehow it
>> > > doesn't feel right for the reference to be the Linux kernel. Maybe this
>> > > is something that needs to be brought up with higher-level Linux maintainers.
>> > >
>> > > I have no problem at all with structuring the device tree in the same
>> > > way in U-Boot as in Linux, as long as that proves to not be a foolish
>> > > endeavor.
>> >
>> > DT is ABI is hardware description and OS-agnostic has been the rule for
>> > 10+ years. If that's no longer the case, can someone please tell me?
>>
>> So if Michael's board with DT provided by U-Boot doesn't work for some
>> stupid reason like "Linux expects the pcie node to be under /soc", or
>> "Linux wants all PCIe BARs of a RCIEP ECAM to be spelled out in the
>> 'ranges' property, because it's too dumb to detect them itself", or
>> something like that, I've got no argument against that, let's go ahead
>> and resync U-Boot with Linux.
>>
>> But "DT is ABI is hardware description" is a pretty vague truism that
>> does not actually help here.
>
>I'm saying that because it's what's been said for what feels like 10+
>years. I don't want to think how many countless hours have been spent
>on that point at conferences over the years. It's not even a Linux
>thing. I would swear you can (or could, unless it got broken) take the
>same DTB for some platforms and boot Linux or FreeBSD or some other BSD
>or maybe even VxWorks and it works.
>
>
I cannot agree more.
For historical reasons in the embedded market, the product maker was
the board maker, the distro producer and the firmware producer. That
led to a situation where the Linux kernel developper was stating the
hardware description and that led to...problems. The best analogy I
have to describe how wrong this is: As a French driver, my Device Tree
description about the car is that the steering wheel is on the left
hand side of the car; when entering an English car, I just complain
that the wheel is not where it should be.
Now the value chain is going more "mature" and your may end up booting
a Fedora IoT edition on a bunch of platforms that have been designed
to boot any distro; and the Trusted Applications may come from the OEM
and not the board maker.
Organizing the software value chain along side of the hardware value
chain (Silicon provider, SoM provider, Carrier provider, Integrator,
Car manufacturer for instance) need DT technology and lifecycle
re-boot. (softwsystem up firmware such as Trusted Firmware, boot
firmware such as U-Boot and operating systems)
Some elements of discussion can be found here:
https://linaro.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DTE/overviewhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLkhLRaz_zcCq44DLGmPZQFPbYHOC6nzPowaL0X…
If we take the https://www.solid-run.com/arm-servers-networking-platforms/honeycomb-workst…
board as an example to stay on NXP SoCs: what is the ideal way to deal
with device tree should we start from a blank sheet?
A key element are SerDes pins: from a SoC perspective they can be made
PCI lanes or Ethernet lanes. This is chosen by the board vendor. An
operating system should never manage the SerDes, it will see either
the PCI lanes or the Ethernet port (not exactly true yet because of
DPAA2 - but let's keep it high level). It is the responsibility of the
firmware to actually match the SoC configuration with board layout
(PCI slot, PCI device, Ethernet port).
In my mind, the ideal situation is: The board vendor takes the SoC DT
as input and applies fixups (at design time or runtime) to produce the
board DT. The board DT should be independent from the firmware stack
(Coreboot, TF-A+U-Boot, TF-A + LinuxBoot) and the booted OS: it is
just describing the hardware!!!
Firmware elements can still apply fixes at runtime: TF-A role is to
pass detected DRAM, U-Boot may have a parameter (saved as U-Boot
variable) to define active cores and ensures the DT is fixed up to
match that desire, OP-TEE can expose the amount of Secure DRAM it has
carved out through FF-A API.
>> Will you accept device trees with devices for which a driver will never
>> probe in U-Boot,
>
>Yes, I will absolutely take device trees that have devices we don't need
>in U-Boot since the point is, and many SoC vendors are doing (and the
>ones that aren't are, I am not happy about / with) right now.
>
>> and will you remove the checkpatch warnings about those,
>> to not discourage people from submitting them prior to the actual public
>> review?
>
>With respect to checkpatch.pl, maybe I'm just missing the line in
>question? Or maybe it's a kernel-related warning we need to disable in
>our .checkpatch.conf. But I don't want to side-track over this part.
>
>> If a U-Boot driver will be written for a device that does not have a
>> driver yet in Linux, then the Linux driver will be written but with
>> DT bindings incompatible with what was established in U-Boot, will you
>> wake up the U-Boot developer from the grave and ask them to resync the
>> driver to follow Linux? Or will you accept drivers at all for hardware
>> that is not supported by Linux?
>
>What I've said for years (but yes, I've missed changes, maybe the yaml
>dt binding stuff would help so I could make CI fail or at least require
>manual override?) is that U-Boot will take immature bindings but it's on
>the developer to re-sync once the bindings are fully reviewed. This is
>to help with the chicken-and-egg problem. But old bindings are not
>intended to be supported, once it's finalized. That is part of the
>bargain.
>
>> I also think there are various degrees of what it means "to work" with a
>> device tree provided directly by U-Boot. Distros like Arch Linux ARM
>> have a package for device tree blobs, and it is expected that these are
>> updated by the distro, and U-Boot just loads them. As Michael points out,
>> the DT provided by U-Boot is just a fallback. The OS should boot to
>> prompt and have a network connection to set itself up properly again.
>> But we need to draw a harder line on what we _actually_ desire to work
>> beyond that.
>
>Every distribution has a package for device tree binaries, because
>that's how you get a device tree on the still vast majority of platforms
>that don't ship one in-flash (RPis being the modern exception) and to my
>knowledge none of them are happy about having to build and pass and make
>sure the right one is used on a given board at boot. So yes, U-Boot
>being able to pass a device tree on to the next stage is one of those
>things to help everything Just Work and be boring.
>
>--
>Tom
