Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

[Enrico Jörns]

Hi Richard,

Am Freitag, dem 03.02.2023 um 14:17 +0000 schrieb Richard Purdie:
> On Fri, 2023-02-03 at 14:50 +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > This adds the support for the barebox bootloader to oe-core. The recipe
> > is based on the recipe found in meta-ptx [1] with a few minor adaptions.
> > 
> > This basic support includes the bootloader and the target tools to
> > interact with the bootloader. The host tools support is not part of
> > this commit. This will be added later on as separate recipe.
> > 
> > [1] https://github.com/pengutronix/meta-ptx/tree/master/recipes-bsp/barebox
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
> > ---
> >  meta/conf/documentation.conf                  |   7 +
> >  meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc          | 123 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2023.01.0.bb |   5 +
> >  ...IMAGE_COMPRESSION-per-default-to-lz4.patch |  40 ++++++
> >  4 files changed, 175 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc
> >  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2023.01.0.bb
> >  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/files/0001-pbl-set-IMAGE_COMPRESSION-per-default-
> > to-lz4.patch
> 
> In order to add something to OE-Core, we need to see it being used by a
> reasonable portion of the ecosystem. Is there enough usage of barebox
> on common boards that justifies this?

I understand that not each and every package can and should be added to OE-core, so let me provide
my view on why adding barebox could be reasonable.

First of all, since it is a bootloader and oe-core's purpose is to provide basic common recipes
required to bring up a device, I found it to be a proper location for the recipe.
It does not add any further dependencies in the oe-core ecosystem so additional maintenance should
be limited in scope.

With over 300 individual contributors and regular monthly releases [1] I would call the barebox
bootloader a common, stable and mature project that is around since ~2009 and provides support for a
wide range of architectures, SoCs and platforms [2] including freely available common boards like
RPI, beaglebone, i.MX eval kits and UEFI in general.

Ever since, barebox has also been used by different hardware vendors (e.g. [4]) and was chosen by
Kalray [5] as their bootloader. Of course, as you know, it is always difficult to have a reliable
overview of the user base of an open source project as barebox.

So far there are already a number of barebox oe recipes around [3] that I find worth to consolidate
with adding one reference recipe to oe-core.


The question if these are sufficient arguments for adding barebox to oe-core probably needs to be
answered by the broader community, but I found it to be a good added value to have a bootloader in
oe-core that adapts many of the well-known schemes of Linux and focuses on being developer-friendly
and framework-driven.
(Let me just drop [6] for those interested in a bit details on what I summed up very roughly here.)

> I noticed there is no maintainers entry being added so this will throw
> QA errors on the autobuilder.

I would take responsibility for the recipe, backed by other barebox developers here.

> Also, I'm not sure adding doc varflags for individual recipe variables
> to documentation.conf makes sense. We should probably have them in the
> recipe or just put entries into the manual?

To be honest, this was inspired by the UBOOT_ variables that are placed in documentation.conf thus
we assumed this could be a proper place. We can simply move them into the recipe to limit intrusion
into the rest of the oe ecosystem.


Many thanks for your initial thoughts! Best regards,

Enrico

> Cheers,
> 
> Richard


[1] https://barebox.org/download/
[2] https://barebox.org/doc/latest/boards.html
[3] http://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/recipes/?q=barebox
[4] https://www.phytec.eu/en/cdocuments/?doc=YQ4RCg
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalray
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fru1n54s2W4&ab_channel=TheLinuxFoundation

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Enrico Jörns                |
Embedded Linux Consulting & Support        | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9    |

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 10:46 +0100, Enrico Jörns wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> Am Freitag, dem 03.02.2023 um 14:17 +0000 schrieb Richard Purdie:
> > On Fri, 2023-02-03 at 14:50 +0100, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > This adds the support for the barebox bootloader to oe-core. The recipe
> > > is based on the recipe found in meta-ptx [1] with a few minor adaptions.
> > > 
> > > This basic support includes the bootloader and the target tools to
> > > interact with the bootloader. The host tools support is not part of
> > > this commit. This will be added later on as separate recipe.
> > > 
> > > [1] https://github.com/pengutronix/meta-ptx/tree/master/recipes-bsp/barebox
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
> > > ---
> > >  meta/conf/documentation.conf                  |   7 +
> > >  meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc          | 123 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >  meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2023.01.0.bb |   5 +
> > >  ...IMAGE_COMPRESSION-per-default-to-lz4.patch |  40 ++++++
> > >  4 files changed, 175 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc
> > >  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2023.01.0.bb
> > >  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/files/0001-pbl-set-IMAGE_COMPRESSION-per-default-
> > > to-lz4.patch
> > 
> > In order to add something to OE-Core, we need to see it being used by a
> > reasonable portion of the ecosystem. Is there enough usage of barebox
> > on common boards that justifies this?
> 
> I understand that not each and every package can and should be added to OE-core, so let me provide
> my view on why adding barebox could be reasonable.
> 
> First of all, since it is a bootloader and oe-core's purpose is to provide basic common recipes
> required to bring up a device, I found it to be a proper location for the recipe.
> It does not add any further dependencies in the oe-core ecosystem so additional maintenance should
> be limited in scope.
> 
> With over 300 individual contributors and regular monthly releases [1] I would call the barebox
> bootloader a common, stable and mature project that is around since ~2009 and provides support for a
> wide range of architectures, SoCs and platforms [2] including freely available common boards like
> RPI, beaglebone, i.MX eval kits and UEFI in general.
> 
> Ever since, barebox has also been used by different hardware vendors (e.g. [4]) and was chosen by
> Kalray [5] as their bootloader. Of course, as you know, it is always difficult to have a reliable
> overview of the user base of an open source project as barebox.
> 
> So far there are already a number of barebox oe recipes around [3] that I find worth to consolidate
> with adding one reference recipe to oe-core.
> 
> The question if these are sufficient arguments for adding barebox to oe-core probably needs to be
> answered by the broader community, but I found it to be a good added value to have a bootloader in
> oe-core that adapts many of the well-known schemes of Linux and focuses on being developer-friendly
> and framework-driven.
> (Let me just drop [6] for those interested in a bit details on what I summed up very roughly here.)

Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to
see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm
sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't
just add everything! :)

The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx.

> > I noticed there is no maintainers entry being added so this will throw
> > QA errors on the autobuilder.
> 
> I would take responsibility for the recipe, backed by other barebox developers here.

Ok, that helps. What about testing? I'm a bit worried that in adding
this, we'd be adding something which doesn't really get tested by the
autobuilder and is hence in an unknown state to us...

> > Also, I'm not sure adding doc varflags for individual recipe variables
> > to documentation.conf makes sense. We should probably have them in the
> > recipe or just put entries into the manual?
> 
> To be honest, this was inspired by the UBOOT_ variables that are placed in documentation.conf thus
> we assumed this could be a proper place. We can simply move them into the recipe to limit intrusion
> into the rest of the oe ecosystem.

There are multiple u-boot pieces so there is a slightly different case
there but even then, I think we should likely be rethinking global
variables like that which are so specific. Sadly global content isn't
something which comes for free in bitbake. I'm not keen to add to the
problem if we don't need to.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador
<otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>> Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to
>> see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm
>> sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't
>> just add everything! :)
>>
>> The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx.
>
>
> I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. It is a solid and commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry standard, but Barebox is also widely used, and it makes sense to be part of OE-Core.

I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in
oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it:
https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox
so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of
using that layer, there's no fragmentation.

Alex

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

[Enrico Jörns]

Am Mittwoch, dem 15.02.2023 um 14:43 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kanavin:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> > > Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to
> > > see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm
> > > sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't
> > > just add everything! :)
> > > 
> > > The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx.
> > 
> > 
> > I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. It is a solid and
> > commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry standard, but Barebox is also widely
> > used, and it makes sense to be part of OE-Core.
> 
> I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in
> oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it:
> https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox
> so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of
> using that layer, there's no fragmentation.
> 

You forgot to mention https://github.com/pengutronix/meta-ptx/tree/master/recipes-bsp/barebox

I did never say that fragmentation is my only motivation.

Regards, Enrico

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Enrico Jörns                |
Embedded Linux Consulting & Support        | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9    |

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

[Otavio Salvador]

Em qua., 15 de fev. de 2023 às 10:44, Alexander Kanavin
<alex.kanavin@gmail.com> escreveu:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> >> Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to
> >> see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm
> >> sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't
> >> just add everything! :)
> >>
> >> The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx.
> >
> > I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. It is a solid and commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry standard, but Barebox is also widely used, and it makes sense to be part of OE-Core.
>
> I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in
> oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it:
> https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox
> so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of
> using that layer, there's no fragmentation.

I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and
reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well
integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if
Pengutronix will commit to support it.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854          Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

[Enrico Jörns]

Am Mittwoch, dem 15.02.2023 um 10:53 -0300 schrieb Otavio Salvador:
> Em qua., 15 de fev. de 2023 às 10:44, Alexander Kanavin
> <alex.kanavin@gmail.com> escreveu:
> > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador
> > <otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> > > > Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to
> > > > see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm
> > > > sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't
> > > > just add everything! :)
> > > > 
> > > > The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx.
> > > 
> > > I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. It is a solid and
> > > commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry standard, but Barebox is also widely
> > > used, and it makes sense to be part of OE-Core.
> > 
> > I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in
> > oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it:
> > https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox
> > so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of
> > using that layer, there's no fragmentation.
> 
> I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and
> reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well
> integrated with U-Boot.

Yes, this is another valid point. We have already identified that many things in OE are a bit
tailored to u-boot. Having another option (as one has for x86 with grub anyway) could, especially on
ARM platforms, inspire to make things more generic and probably also create community synergy
effects.

What clearly would not be the intention is to tailor things in oe-core for barebox only.

> For me, a critical point for decision is if
> Pengutronix will commit to support it.

Yes, I stated that this is clearly our intention.
So support isn't only a one-man show at all ;)


Thanks and best regards, Enrico

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Enrico Jörns                |
Embedded Linux Consulting & Support        | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9    |

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 14:53, Otavio Salvador
<otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and
> reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well
> integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if
> Pengutronix will commit to support it.

You should be well aware there's a history of people contributing
stuff to core and even assigning themselves as maintainers, then
disappearing. And then it falls (largely) on me to keep things
(barely) going. What happens if ptx withdraws its commitment? Can I
then send a commit that removes barebox from core? Imagine the angry
lynch mob that will show up after my head.

Adding things to core is a decision that cannot be easily reversed, so
I'd rather have barebox in meta-barebox for a while, with any needed
fixing to classes and infra in core.

Alex

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

[Otavio Salvador]

Em qua., 15 de fev. de 2023 às 11:11, Alexander Kanavin
<alex.kanavin@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 14:53, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> > I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and
> > reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well
> > integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if
> > Pengutronix will commit to support it.
>
> You should be well aware there's a history of people contributing
> stuff to core and even assigning themselves as maintainers, then
> disappearing. And then it falls (largely) on me to keep things
> (barely) going. What happens if ptx withdraws its commitment? Can I
> then send a commit that removes barebox from core? Imagine the angry
> lynch mob that will show up after my head.

Yes. If no one maintains, it should be removed. People will get mad
but then we'll see more commitment in future.

> Adding things to core is a decision that cannot be easily reversed, so
> I'd rather have barebox in meta-barebox for a while, with any needed
> fixing to classes and infra in core.

Sure but adding things to the core should still be possible and it is
a place to foster work sharing and contribution.
--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854          Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

[Enrico Jörns]

Am Mittwoch, dem 15.02.2023 um 15:11 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kanavin:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 14:53, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> > I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and
> > reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well
> > integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if
> > Pengutronix will commit to support it.
> 
> You should be well aware there's a history of people contributing
> stuff to core and even assigning themselves as maintainers, then
> disappearing.

If possible I would add my name with the above-mentioned Mailing list to the maintainers file.
This ensures I am responsible but not the only one reading the mails.

> And then it falls (largely) on me to keep things
> (barely) going. What happens if ptx withdraws its commitment? Can I
> then send a commit that removes barebox from core? Imagine the angry
> lynch mob that will show up after my head.

I am fully ok with removing barebox again if we fail maintaining it properly.

Should I sign this somewhere? ;)

> Adding things to core is a decision that cannot be easily reversed, so
> I'd rather have barebox in meta-barebox for a while, with any needed
> fixing to classes and infra in core.

It has been in meta-ptx since 2015 and in meta-barebox since 2016. I would call that 'a while' :)


Best regards, Enrico

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Enrico Jörns                |
Embedded Linux Consulting & Support        | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9    |

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support

[Alexander Kanavin]

There was a parallel conversation on the irc meanwhile; we've
concluded that Enrico will look into adding qemu based tests for
barebox into oe-selftest like we already have for EFI bootloaders, and
there will be a new patchset then.

Alex

On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 16:01, Enrico Jörns <ejo@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, dem 15.02.2023 um 15:11 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kanavin:
> > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 14:53, Otavio Salvador
> > <otavio.salvador@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> > > I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and
> > > reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well
> > > integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if
> > > Pengutronix will commit to support it.
> >
> > You should be well aware there's a history of people contributing
> > stuff to core and even assigning themselves as maintainers, then
> > disappearing.
>
> If possible I would add my name with the above-mentioned Mailing list to the maintainers file.
> This ensures I am responsible but not the only one reading the mails.
>
> > And then it falls (largely) on me to keep things
> > (barely) going. What happens if ptx withdraws its commitment? Can I
> > then send a commit that removes barebox from core? Imagine the angry
> > lynch mob that will show up after my head.
>
> I am fully ok with removing barebox again if we fail maintaining it properly.
>
> Should I sign this somewhere? ;)
>
> > Adding things to core is a decision that cannot be easily reversed, so
> > I'd rather have barebox in meta-barebox for a while, with any needed
> > fixing to classes and infra in core.
>
> It has been in meta-ptx since 2015 and in meta-barebox since 2016. I would call that 'a while' :)
>
>
> Best regards, Enrico
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Enrico Jörns                |
> Embedded Linux Consulting & Support        | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
> Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180  |
> 31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-9    |
>