Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 10:28:42 -0700 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Free BSD <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: A FreeBSD port to build a RPI_EFI.fd matching https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 versioning? Message-ID: <4B03F462-5C34-4B36-9075-586CFE59037C@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <F8E6E174-34AC-4870-876D-F6ED7C6D6928@yahoo.com> References: <F8E6E174-34AC-4870-876D-F6ED7C6D6928@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2022-Apr-17, at 04:41, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: > One of the things about the sysutils/edk2@rpi4 port flavor is that > it does not build the same tested/in-use releases as the project > that develops the EDK2 support for the RPi4: different commits > are used. >=20 > I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a port that has > the purpose of building what matches some https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 > release. So I tried to make a variant of sysutils/edk2 that > does build such. (I'm new to creating a port, even as a > textually minor variation of another one.) >=20 > Part of the prompt for this is OpenBSD has taken the route of: >=20 > QUOTE of https://www.openbsd.org/arm64.html : > Some Raspberry Pi models that do not work with the included > U-Boot (e.g. Raspberry Pi 400) can instead be booted using > EDK2-based UEFI firmware. > END QUOTE >=20 > (Where the link in that text is to: https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 .) >=20 > I suspect such may well be true of the RPi4B C0T parts > that do not have the odd size limitations, such as a > 3 GiBytes limitation. >=20 > As for https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 vs. tianocore . . . >=20 > All https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 really does is hold a git > repository that has the https://github.com/tianocore/edk2* > and such needed as submodules --plus having a patch or two. > (I ignore .github/workflows material here.) >=20 > I made a variant of sysutils/edk2 that only targets > allowing tracking of what https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 > uses from tianocore (and what that in turn uses). For now, > I used the example of matching v1.33 for > https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 (the most recent release). >=20 > The core of it is: >=20 > PORTNAME=3D edk2-pftf-rpi4 > DISTVERSIONPREFIX=3D v > DISTVERSION=3D 1.33 > CATEGORIES=3D sysutils > . . . > COMMENT=3D EDK2 Firmware matching a github.com/pftf/RPi4 = version >=20 > # Tags for tianocore submodules needed. (Note: pftf/RPi3 does not > # match pftf/RPi4 .) Same tags as git submodule status reports for > # manually following the pftf/RPi4 steps. > # Also later true of GH_TAGNAME for edk2. > PLATFORM_TAG=3D 958fc02b15 > NONOSI_TAG=3D 0320db9 >=20 > # Tags for non-tianocore submodules used by tianocore for the > # pftf/RPi4 build. BROTLI_TAG has a 2nd use, handled via the > # post-extract make target. (Some submodules are not listed > # because they are unused for pftf/RPi4 .) Note: pftf/RPi3 > # does not match pftf/RPI4 . > OPENSSL_TAG=3D OpenSSL_1_1_1j > SOFTFLOAT_TAG=3D b64af41 > ONIGURUMA_TAG=3D v6.9.4_mark1 > BROTLI_TAG=3D v1.0.9-36-gf4153a0 > # Note: git submodule status showed v1.0.9-35-gf4153a0 but that > # failed here and when I counted I got 36. So I tried 36 --and it > # worked. >=20 > One oddity that I ran into is a known problem for FreeBSD's > /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 vs. aarch64 g++ code generation. I documented > that with: >=20 > USE_GCC=3D 11:build > # Note: > # I needed to use a -Wl,-rpath=3D/usr/local/lib/gcc* to work around > # FreeBSD's /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 having incomplete/inaccurate > # coverage for aarch64 g++ code generation's use of libgcc_s.so.1 . > # Otherwise tools built, such as VfrCompile, get the following > # when run: "ld-elf.so.1: /lib/libgcc_s.so.1: version GCC_4.5.0 > # required by /usr/local/lib/gcc11/libstdc++.so.6 not found". > # I did not see a supported way to have an automatically > # adjusting -Wl,-rpath=3D/usr/local/lib/gcc* . > . . . > # Avoid: "ld-elf.so.1: /lib/libgcc_s.so.1: version GCC_4.5.0 > # required by /usr/local/lib/gcc11/libstdc++.so.6 not found" > # (that is from /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 having incomplete/inaccurate > # coverage for aarch64 g++ code generation's use of libgcc_s.so.1 ): > EXTRA_LDFLAGS+=3D -Wl,-rpath=3D${LOCALBASE}/lib/gcc11 > . . . > # Emulate source edk2/edksetup.sh > MAKE_ENV+=3D WORKSPACE=3D${WRKDIR} \ > = PACKAGES_PATH=3D${WRKDIR}/edk2-${GH_TAGNAME}:${WRKDIR}/edk2-platforms-${PL= ATFORM_TAG}:${WRKDIR}/edk2-non-osi-${NONOSI_TAG} \ > CONF_PATH=3D${WRKDIR}/edk2-${GH_TAGNAME}/Conf \ > EDK_TOOLS_PATH=3D${WRKDIR}/edk2-${GH_TAGNAME}/BaseTools = \ > = PATH=3D${WRKDIR}/edk2-${GH_TAGNAME}/BaseTools/BinWrappers/PosixLike:${PATH= } \ > PYTHON_COMMAND=3Dpython3 \ > PYTHONHASHSEED=3D1 \ > EXTRA_LDFLAGS=3D${EXTRA_LDFLAGS} >=20 > I kept the original patch file names. One I could list in > EXTRA_PATCHES and the other was used via post-patch: >=20 > # Using same patch file names as pftf/RPi4 : > EXTRA_PATCHES=3D = ${FILESDIR}/0001-MdeModulePkg-UefiBootManagerLib-Signal-ReadyToBoot-o.patc= h:-p1 > . . . > # Using same patch file names as pftf/RPi4 : > post-patch: > ${PATCH} -d ${WRKDIR}/edk2-platforms-${PLATFORM_TAG} -p1 -s < = ${FILESDIR}/0002-Check-for-Boot-Discovery-Policy-change.patch >=20 > pkg-descr and distinfo were updated as well. >=20 > poudriere testport seemed to be happy with things. > portlint only complains about the limitation to > exactly gcc11 (or whatever is listed there). >=20 > But I've not actually tested the image built (yet?). > Note that, unlike sysutils/edk2@rpi4 , the port > does build to completion. (sysutils/edk2@FLAVOR builds > have been failing for a very long time for versions > of gcc that handle C's newer VLA notation correctly > (Variable Length Array). This is because brotli > violated the C language definition but gcc10 and > before ignored the issue. (Otherwise the other things > likely would have also been broken.) But, even when it > built, I avoided the mix of versions that no development > team was testing for the platform(s) of interest to me.) >=20 > So I got far enough along to ask: does a port for this > purpose seem worthwhile? >=20 > I'll note that FreeBSD still has no ACPI drivers > supporting the use of the RPi4B's: >=20 > A) built-in microsd card slot > B) built-in EtherNet port >=20 > I use USB devices for such when using > https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 . >=20 > It is possible that I'll get access to a RPi4B with > a C0T part (no odd size limitations) that is also > Rev 1.5 (new PMIC) instead of Rev 1.4 . So I may end > up able to test booting and operation of an example > of such. >=20 I should have noted that I've not done anything (yet?) about getting a copy of the RPi* firmware that https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 bundles in a release (v1.33 here). As stands, it is only the EDK2's RPI_EFI.fd that is provided. Part of what https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 provides is that they develop a working combination and update when problems are discovered, such a reverting to older RPi* firmware. =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B03F462-5C34-4B36-9075-586CFE59037C>