Dear EBBR contributors,
Version 2.4.0-pre2 of the EBBR specification is now available for your
review. Comparisons in text and pdf format are attached to the
pre-release tag. [1]
Please have a look and report any defect you find.
A number of pull requests have been raised already to address issues (by
Heinrich; thanks!) Please review them; we will go through those and
gather additional feedbacks during our call of Feb 11. [2]
If a consensus is reached on all items, we might even declare an EBBR
v2.4.0 release.
Thanks!
Vincent Stehlé
System Architect - Arm
[1] https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/releases/tag/v2.4.0-pre2
[2] https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/wiki/EBBR-Meetings
Hello Ilias, hello Vincent,
I am currently reviewing EBBR v2.4.0-pre1.
I guess a compliant software present all four of the GUIDs so that a
client looking for a certain compliance level will hit a match.
Currently U-Boot only presents the
EFI_CONFORMANCE_PROFILE_EBBR_2_1_GUID. We should evaluate what is
missing with respect to the other levels.
What I am missing in the EBBR spec is a table with the requirements
indicating in which version each requirement was added.
Testing would also become easier if each requirement were numbered.
Best regards
Heinrich
Dear EBBR contributors,
Version 2.4.0-pre1 of the EBBR specification is now available for your
review. [1]
Please have a look and report any defect you find. We will gather feedbacks
during our call of Jan 14 next year. [2] If no major issue is found, we
should have an EBBR v2.4.0 release before end of January.
I wish you some nice Christmas Holidays,
Vincent Stehlé
System Architect - Arm
[1] https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/releases/tag/v2.4.0-pre1
[2] https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/wiki/EBBR-Meetings
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 2:37 PM Doug Anderson <dianders(a)chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 3:16 PM Rob Herring <robh(a)kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > as a set of examples. I don't see a clear way to generate these from
> > > a fragmented scheme. There's a similar problem with the board-level
> > > compatible:
> > >
> > > compatible = "solidrun,cubox-i/dl", "fsl,imx6dl";
> > > compatible = "solidrun,hummingboard2/dl", "fsl,imx6dl";
> > > compatible = "solidrun,hummingboard/dl", "fsl,imx6dl";
> > > compatible = "solidrun,hummingboard2/q", "fsl,imx6q";
> > >
> > > These don't include the SoM information.
> >
> > So we're back to needing to merge compatible even though Doug was
> > willing to drop it. Or to put it another way, there's usecases for the
> > base to be different SoC revisions and variants. So I don't think we
> > should give up on solving that.
>
> I'm willing to take a crack at it. Before doing so, though, I think we
> need to agree upon a definition of what the top-level "compatible" is
> supposed to be. Otherwise, what exactly is our goal in trying to merge
> "compatible" strings? We should have a goal of updating the official
> documentation with whatever we decide.
>
>
> I guess first, we should see what the spec says. The Devicetree
> Specification v0.4 says this about the top-level compatible (which, it
> should be noted, is documented _separtely_ from section 2.3.1 since
> all of section 2.3 is only about device nodes):
>
> > Specifies a list of platform architectures with which this platform is compatible. This property can be used by operating systems in selecting platform specific code. The recommended form of the property value is: "manufacturer,model" For example: compatible = "fsl,mpc8572ds"
>
> That's not very detailed, but I guess we can start out looking at what
> it _doesn't_ say.
>
> a) The spec doesn't say anything about the top-level compatible
> uniquely identifying a specific hardware configuration. Nothing there
> says "look at one of the strings in the list and you can tell exactly
> what product you have in front of you".
>
> b) The spec doesn't specifically mention that one should include any
> strings for a SoC / SoM / reference board. Indeed, the example given
> shows an example "compatible" with just one string: "fsl,mpc8572ds".
> Searching the interwebs, I find that this example "compatible"
> probably refers to a Freescale "MPC8572 Development System", which is
> a dev board with a "MPC8572" chip. Notably, the example "compatible"
> didn't include the "MPC8572" chip.
>
> c) The spec doesn't seem to include a firm definition of what they
> mean by the word "platform". In my mind, one could interpret the SoC
> as a "platform". One could also interpret a SoM or a reference board
> as a "platform". It's not necessarily clear. Since AI is the answer to
> all things these days, I asked Gemini. I asked what "platform" meant
> in the context of the DT spec and it (confidently) told me that "the
> platform is the physical machine." ...but when I asked if one could
> also consider the SoC the "platform", it told me that was "an
> excellent clarifying question" and went on to say the SoC "is often
> referred to as the base platform or the SoC-level platform." :-P
>
>
> How does that help us? I guess I'd summarize that, from reading the
> spec and more loosely interpreting the word "platform":
>
> a) The compatible string doesn't _need_ to include strings
> representing the SoC, SoM, or baseboard, but it can.
>
> b) The compatible string is primarily there for use by the operating
> system to select platform (board, reference board, SoM, or SoC)
> specific code.
>
>
> That still doesn't really tell us when we should / shouldn't include a
> SoC / SoM / baseboard in the top-level "compatible". It also doesn't
> tell us if we should include even more detailed levels. ...and by
> "more detailed levels", I would perhaps say that each of these could
> also be considered a "platform":
> * google,trogdor-lazor-rev6-sku6 - An exact model of board.
> * google,trogdor-lazor-rev6 - A platform that has several SKUs.
> * google,trogdor-lazor - A platform that has several revisions and SKUs.
> * google,trogdor - A reference platform that has several boards.
>
>
> Perhaps we should lean into the statement "This property can be used
> by operating systems in selecting platform specific code" to give us
> guidance? The problem is that we somehow need to not just look at
> current operating systems but, if we want to strive towards the goal
> of shipping binary device trees, we need to consider future operating
> system code that hasn't yet been written. That sounds impossible and
> makes one think you should cram as much info into the compatible
> string as possible, but...
>
> ...actually, we only need to put information into the compatible
> string if there's not an easy way for the operating system to get the
> information elsewhere, right? If the information is found elsewhere in
> the device tree or if the operating system can probe the information
> itself, then there's really no _need_ to put it in the top-level
> "compatible" and we'll never end up painting ourselves into a corner.
> We could still put the information there just to make it convenient,
> but it's not really needed. Does this make sense?
>
> I would further argue that, in order to be useful, any given
> "platform" should document its expectations and we need to be
> consistent across anyone using that platform. To make it concrete, if
> the Qualcomm SC7180 platform documents that "qcom,sc7180" belongs in
> the top-level compatible string then all device trees including sc7180
> should have that string. This _doesn't_ mean that on some future
> platform (like qcom,sc9999) we couldn't make a different decision.
> Maybe on "qcom,sc9999" we've decided to put SoC details as some
> properties under the "soc@0" node. Now the operating system can find
> the details about which SoC is present from the "soc@0" node and
> therefore we don't need to represent it in the top-level compatible
> string.
>
>
> Assuming that all makes sense, maybe the way to document the top-level
> compatible string:
>
> --
>
> Specifies a list of "platform architectures" with which this platform
> is compatible. A "platform architecture" can be at any level, from the
> specific board to the class of board to the reference platform to the
> SoM to the SoC. A given "platform architecture" should always be
> consistently included or not-included by all final device trees using
> it. If the "qcom,sc7180" SoC platform is defined to be included, it
> should be consistently included by any device trees with this SoC. The
> criteria for whether to represent a "platform architecture" in the
> top-level compatible string is the difficulty of the operating system
> obtaining the information in some other way (including from other DT
> properties or from probing). In general, the top-level "compatible"
> used by operating systems in selecting platform specific code. The
> recommended form of the property value is: "manufacturer,model"
>
> Examples:
>
> compatible = "fsl,mpc8572ds";
> - Select code related to the Freescale MPC8572 Development System
>
> No platform is included for the CPU since ("fsl,mpc8572") isn't
> consistently listed as a platform.
>
> compatible = "google,snow-rev4", "google,snow", "samsung,exynos5250",
> "samsung,exynos5"
> - Select code related to google,snow-rev4.
> - Select code related to google,snow.
> - Select code related to samsung,exynos5250.
> - Select code related to samsung,exynos5.
>
> In this example, the idea is that all exynos5 boards would have
> "samsung,exynos5" so code that needed to run on "exynos5" could
> consistently test for that "compatible" string. Similarly, all
> exynos5250 boards would have "samsung,exynos5250" and all snow boards
> would have "google,snow"
>
> --
>
> What do folks think?
>
> Note that the current Chromebook stuff [1] we used on sc7180-trogdor
> boards doesn't fit amazingly well into that definition, but it can
> kinda squeeze in there. Essentially the sc7180-trogdor stuff is
> designed around making it easy for the bootloader to find the right
> device tree but doesn't provide anything terribly useful to the OS in
> the top-level "compatible" string. At this point, I don't think I
> would encourage others to adopt something similar.
>
>
> If folks agree with the above interpretation, I think I'd end up back
> to arguing _against_ the need to merge compatible strings. If we don't
> need to put detailed SoC information into the top-level compatible
> string then we don't need to merge. I think the most
> flexible/futureproof would be to just define that for the SoC inside
> Pixel 10 (and presumably all future Google Silicon) we'll put SoC
> information under the "soc@0" node and thus there's no need to include
> it in the top-level "compatible". That leaves us without a
> "compatible" to put in the base "dtb", but maybe we can just put
> compatible = "incomplete" or something like that?
>
> I suspect that even for Russell's purposes the information can either
> be probed by the OS or put in places other than the top-level
> compatible string. We might not want to change his existing
> devicetrees in case some OS is relying on the existing compatible
> strings, but for work going forward it feels like it would be a
> solution...
>
>
> [1] https://docs.kernel.org/arch/arm/google/chromebook-boot-flow.html
It's me again. The pest.
Adding a few people who piped up when I mentioned this at Plumbers
(namely Bjorn and Geert)...
Bjorn mentioned that, in general, it's hard to know what device /
devicetree people are using when they report bugs. Presumably if we
made the top-level compatible less representative of the overall
system, this problem would be made worse?
While this is true, to me it isn't necessarily a blocker (though feel
free to object). Specifically:
* The device tree doesn't fully describe all hardware anyway. While we
might use a "SKU" variant to choose between one MIPI panel or another,
Chromebooks _don't_ use SKU variants to choose between one eDP panel
or another because eDP panels can be probed. We also might use a "SKU"
variant to choose between two MIPI webcams but not two USB webcams for
the same reason.
* We've already accepted the idea of "hardware probers" that can run
at boot anyway and those don't adjust SKU numbers. grep the source for
"fail-needs-probe".
Someone pointed out that if you really need the device tree it could
be captured in bug reports. This seems reasonable to me. I also really
liked the idea of keeping some sort of log somewhere in the device
tree every time an overlay is applied, though I tend to agree with
others that filenames of device tree files shouldn't be ABI.
Geert talked about the top-level compatible as being the "last resort"
to fix any issue. That matches my understanding above from reading the
docs and seeing how it was used. Geert: I would be curious what you
thought about my arguments above.
In general, I'm still hoping to figure out next steps. I believe this
problem is important enough that we shouldn't just drop it due to
silence, so I'll continue being my usual noisy self and keep
pestering.
-Doug
Dear EBBR stakeholders,
We have currently no agenda for today's EBBR call. [1]
If you have a topic to discuss today, please let us know before 11am UTC,
otherwise we will adjourn the call.
Best regards,
Vincent Stehlé
System Architect - Arm
[1] https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/wiki/EBBR-Meetings
This is a continuation of the discussion that started in reply to my
patch adding basic device trees for Pixel 10 phones [1].
Problem statement:
------------------
We would like an officially accepted scheme that lets us more
efficiently ship compiled device trees for a handful of related
products by breaking the device trees up into a common "base" device
tree and then applying "overlay" device trees atop the base to make a
full and complete device tree.
To make it more concrete, we'd like to build a "base" device tree that
describes a SoC and then have the overlays be enough to make a full
description of a board. In theory, one could also imagine wanting to
expand this to 3 or more levels (perhaps SoC, baseboard, derived
boards), though this is not planned at this time.
The primary reason for wanting to break device trees like this is
efficiency of the shipped binary device trees. A large portion of a
final device tree just describes the SoC. We save space in the final
compiled device trees if they don't need to contain as much duplicated
information.
A secondary reason for wanting to break device trees like this is to
more nicely handle when a board has a socketed SoC that can be
replaced with a finite (and small) number of different SoCs (usually
revisions of the same SoC). Even if this secondary reason is
considered invalid or too difficult, the primary reason still
describes a compelling need.
In order to make this proposal work, it's expected that a bootloader
will understand the scheme and will know how to combine the overlay
atop the base before passing a complete device tree to the main OS.
Current state of the art (downstream):
--------------------------------------
In Android, we do a pretty good job of solving the stated problem
using device tree overlays. We describe the SoCs in "dts" files and
compile them into "dtb"s. We describe boards in "dtso" files and
compile them into "dtbo" files. A bootloader can handle identifying
the correct base and overlay (the scheme for doing this is a separate
but related topic) and applying the overlay atop the base "dtb". This
solution is fully implemented downstream for Android phones and is
well documented [2].
The issues I'm aware of with the current state of the art are:
1. In order for the base device tree to pass schema validation on its
own we'd need to document the top-level compatible strings in the
device tree. It is the opinion of at least some device tree
maintainers that a SoC doesn't qualify as a top-level compatible
string. This prevents the device trees from landing in an officially
sanctioned location.
2. It is also possible we may fail schema validation for the base SoC
tree if the schema marks a property as "required" but that property
needs to be filled out by the board (perhaps a "-supply" is marked as
"required", since most "-supply" properties are filled in by the
board. I'm not sure this is a big issue, but it's something to think
about.
3. It's unclear if there is any official "ABI" promised here once
we've compiled and validated the base device tree on its own. Will
people assume that they can have out-of-tree overlays derived from the
base SoC tree and that those out-of-tree overlays will continue to
work across changes / cleanups to the base? NOTE: this is a
pre-existing question for existing device tree overlay usage, but the
sheer quantity of nodes/properties that a board would be expected to
overlay/modify in the base make the problem more prominent.
4. We want the final device tree's top-level compatible to be all the
compatible strings from the board followed by all of the compatible
strings for the SoC. When the board's overlay is applied to the base
SoC tree, though, the board's top-level compatible fully replaces the
compatible from the base SoC tree. This can be solved today for
non-socketed boards by just duplicating the SoC compatible strings in
the board overlays. We can't solve this today for socketed boards,
though we can simply make sure that no software drivers rely on the
specific SoC compatible string being present and thus we can ignore
the problem.
None of the above problems are big enough to have prevented widespread
use of this scheme in downstream Android.
Current state of the art (upstream):
------------------------------------
Upstream if we have a pile of related boards, we do allow
deduplicating things at a source-code level with "dtsi" files. We can
have a SoC "dtsi" file and that file is included by all boards that
use that SoC. When it comes time to validate or ship things, though,
we only work with full devices trees. This means that we ship
duplicated information.
Proposal:
---------
1. Allow the top-level compatible string of an "incomplete" device
tree to be documented so it can be validated on its own by tools. It's
understood that this SoC is not a board by itself and we'd never boot
a full OS with this device tree without adding an overlay that changes
the top-level compatible. Add a top-level property to the device tree
(perhaps "incomplete-compatible;") to indicate that the tree is not
complete without an overlay.
2. If it turns out to be needed (hopefully it's not), allow some type
of syntax in yaml files that allows a property to be marked as
"required" in a "complete" device tree but not in an "incomplete"
device tree. Alternatively, we could discourage marking properties as
"required" if they're expected to be filled in by a board.
3. Define that there is no promised ABI between "incomplete" device
trees and anything not stored with them. Specifically, all valid
combinations of "incomplete" device trees with overlays to complete
them should be enumerated together with the "incomplete" device tree.
4. When applying an overlay to a device tree that's "incomplete", the
top level overlay will be merged instead of replaced.
Example for 2 levels:
base (incomplete) compatible: "socvendor,mysoc-rev1", "socvendor,mysoc";
overlay compatible: "boardvendor,myboard-rev1", "boardvendor,myboard";
merged compatible: "boardvendor,myboard-rev1", "boardvendor,myboard",
"socvendor,mysoc-rev1", "socvendor,mysoc";
Possible example if we support 3 levels:
SoC (incomplete) compatible: "socvendor,mysoc-rev1", "socvendor,mysoc"
overlay1 (incomplete) compatible: "referencevendor,referencecodename";
overlay2 compatible: "boardvendor,myboard-rev1", "boardvendor,myboard"
merged compatible: "boardvendor,myboard-rev1", "boardvendor,myboard",
"referencevendor,reference-codename",
"socvendor,mysoc-rev1", "socvendor,mysoc";
Obviously in the 3-level scheme we need to know the order that
overlays are applied, but that's true for overlays today anyway.
The above proposal takes the current downstream "state of the art" and
addresses the known issues, solving the original problem statement.
Other thoughts:
---------------
If you don't like the proposal, I'd be interested in knowing if you
have other ideas for solving the original problem statement, or if you
simply think the problem we're trying to solve here is an invalid one.
I'm happy to post up another revision of my Pixel 10 device trees
following this proof of concept (or other ones). My v1 was _very_
close to this, but didn't have the "incomplete-compatible;" property
and didn't implement top-level compatible merging.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251111112158.1.I72a0b72562b85d02fee424fed939fea…
[2] https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/dto/partitions
