Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 21:42:09 -0800 From: "Tony Hain" <tony@tndh.net> To: "'Oleksandr Tymoshenko'" <gonzo@bluezbox.com> Cc: <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Questions about BBB/BBG dtb names vs. content Message-ID: <0fdf01d285bb$eb15f8f0$c141ead0$@tndh.net> In-Reply-To: <20170211201140.GA66049@bluezbox.com> References: <0ee901d28406$052ed070$0f8c7150$@tndh.net> <20170211015231.GA56071@bluezbox.com> <0f3901d2849a$3ac2ca40$b0485ec0$@tndh.net> <20170211201140.GA66049@bluezbox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Oleksandr Tymoshenko [mailto:gonzo@bluezbox.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 12:12 PM > To: Tony Hain > Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Questions about BBB/BBG dtb names vs. content > > Tony Hain (tony@tndh.net) wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Oleksandr Tymoshenko [mailto:gonzo@bluezbox.com] > > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 5:53 PM > > > To: Tony Hain > > > Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: Questions about BBB/BBG dtb names vs. content > > > > > > Tony Hain (tony@tndh.net) wrote: > > > > When I built 12 current the other day, I found some confusing dtb > > > > file names. > > > > First there were identical files : > > > > am335x-bone.dtb beaglebone.dtb > > > > am335x-boneblack.dtb beaglebone-black.dtb > > > > > > > > But there was not a matching one for green. Is that intentional? > > > > am335x-bonegreen.dtb > > > > > > > > Then the content didn't match the names: > > > > am335x-boneblack.dtb -- > > > > compatible = "ti,am335x-bone-black", "ti,am335x-bone", > > > > "ti,am33xx"; > > > > > > > > am335x-bonegreen.dtb -- > > > > compatible = "ti,am335x-bone-green", "ti,am335x-bone-black", > > > > "ti,am335x-bone", "ti,am33xx"; > > > > > > > > Aren't the strings in the compatible line supposed to match the > > > > file > > names? > > > > Is there a reason there are identical files in the dtb path rather > > > > than a link? > > > > Is the fdt_file="" line required in loader.conf if the am335x > > > > file name exists? > > > > > > > > I have the BBB running with fdt_file="beaglebone-black.dtb", and > > > > the changes to it for turning on uart1. Should I have made the > > > > changes to the am335x file instead, or should I create the > > > > beaglebone-green.dtb > > file > > > for the BBG? > > > > > > beaglebone*dtb is FreeBSD-specific DTB names, dts files for them > > > were created in early days of FDT support. am335x-*dtb are upstream > > > names, Linux and U-Boot use them as standard names. > > > > > > U-Boot can detect type of board in run-time and set fdt_file env > > > variable based on that type. Until recently we had > > > sysutils/u-boot-beaglebone port with custom FreeBSD-specific patch > > > where this autodetect logic used beaglebone*dtb names. Recently it > > > was converted to being slave port to sysutils/u-boot-master as a part of > U-Boot ports unification effort. > > During this > > > conversion aforementioned patch was deleted so now u-boot operates > > > with am335x-*.dtb names. To be backward-compatible with previously > > > built systems, that still refer to old-style names, we now create > > > links, beaglebone.dtb is a link to am335x-bone.dtb and > > > beaglebone-black.dtb is a link to am335x-boneblack.dtb. There was > > > no FreeBSD-specific DTS for beaglebone green previously, so > > > am335x-bonegreen.dtb does not have > > > beaglebone* counterpart. > > > > Thanks for the background. I had seen comments about a transition, but > > not enough detail to figure out old vs. new. > > > > > > > > At the moment any changes toboot/fdt/dts/arm/beagebone-*.dts are > not > > > going affect beagebone-*.dtb because these dtbs created as links, > > > not generated. I have patch in review that fixes it and brings back > > > old-style > > DTBs > > > along with some fixes that are in upstream but haven't been merged > > > to FreeBSD tree yet: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9432 > > > > That may be the intent, but as of FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #0 r313411: Wed > > Feb > > 8 00:04:14 PST 2017 they were separate files, not links: > > root@tic:~ # ls -l /boot/dtb > > total 248 > > -r--r--r-- 2 root wheel 33017 Feb 8 00:07 am335x-bone.dtb > > -r--r--r-- 2 root wheel 33801 Feb 8 00:07 am335x-boneblack.dtb > > -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 33305 Feb 8 00:07 am335x-bonegreen.dtb > > -r--r--r-- 2 root wheel 33801 Feb 8 00:07 beaglebone-black.dtb > > -r--r--r-- 2 root wheel 33017 Feb 8 00:07 beaglebone.dtb > > -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 31483 Feb 8 00:07 ufw.dtb > > > > Links are what I expected, and is why I asked for clarification. > > They are hardlinks, not symlinks > % ls -ali am335x-bone.dtb beaglebone.dtb am335x-boneblack.dtb > beaglebone-black.d tb > 4251661 -r--r--r-- 2 root wheel 33017 Feb 11 11:48 am335x-bone.dtb > 4251662 -r--r--r-- 2 root wheel 33801 Feb 11 11:48 am335x-boneblack.dtb > 4251662 -r--r--r-- 2 root wheel 33801 Feb 11 11:48 beaglebone-black.dtb > 4251661 -r--r--r-- 2 root wheel 33017 Feb 11 11:48 beaglebone.dtb > > inode number (first column) is the same respective dtbs. Please forgive the oversight. I haven't seen anyone use hard links for 30 years, so that didn't even occur to me. Tony > > -- > gonzo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0fdf01d285bb$eb15f8f0$c141ead0$>