Hi Heiko, Rob, >From https://coreboot.org/status/board-status.html The only supported boards listed are: Veyron Rockchip RK3288 boards Veyron Mickey Rockchip RK3288 board Veyron Rialto Rockchip RK3288 board Gru Rockchip RK3399 reference board Fixed with: ARM: dts: rockchip: Remove @0 from the veyron memory node https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10688081/ The problem is rk3288-veyron only I think. Else fix coreboot to comply with DT rules, not the other way around. Will make v2. Can robh give advice here? Thanks On 3/6/20 12:58 AM, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > Hi Johan, Rob, > > Am Donnerstag, 5. März 2020, 23:21:52 CET schrieb Johan Jonker: >> Goal was to reduce the error output of existing code a little bit, >> so that we can use it for the review of new patches. >> Some questions: >> As I don't have the hardware, where else is coreboot used? >> Is this a rk3288-veyron.dtsi problem only? >> ie. Is it a option to produce a patch serie v2 without veyron? >> Can someone help testing? > > I believe that is more question for @Rob : > > In the past we said that it would be ok to have "memory" nodes without > address, so "memory {}" instead of "memory@0 {}", simply because > bootloaders mess up sometimes. > > Question now would be how to make the yaml bindings happy. > > Thanks > Heiko > > >> >> Johan >> >> On 3/5/20 10:31 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote: >>> Hi Johan, >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 4. März 2020, 08:40:50 CET schrieb Johan Jonker: >>>> A test with the command below gives for example this error: >>>> >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-tinker.dt.yaml: /: memory: >>>> False schema does not allow >>>> {'device_type': ['memory'], 'reg': [[0, 0, 0, 2147483648]]} >>>> >>>> The memory nodes all have a reg property that requires '@' in >>>> the nodename. Fix this error by adding the missing '@0' to >>>> the involved memory nodenames. >>>> >>>> make ARCH=arm dtbs_check >>>> DT_SCHEMA_FILES=~/.local/lib/python3.5/site-packages/dtschema/ >>>> schemas/root-node.yaml >>> >>> changes to memory nodes you sadly cannot do in such an automated fashion. >>> If you read the comment in rk3288-veyron.dtsi you'll see that a previous >>> similar iteration broke all of those machines as their coreboot doesn't >>> copy with memory@0 and would insert another memory node without @0 >>> >>> In the past iteration the consensus then was that memory without @0 >>> is also ok (as it isn't changeable anyway). >>> >> >>> As I don't really want to repeat that, I'd like actual hardware tests >>> before touching memory nodes. >> >> Any suggestion/feedback rapport welcome. >> >>> >>> Heiko >>> >>> >> > > > >
