Rockchip SoC support #56

apatard · 2025-02-18T20:14:52Z

Add support for rockchip maskrom mode. It can send files generated with boot_merger and for SoC with older
IDB format, it can generated the blob at run time. For SoCs with IDB v2, some extra work is needed atm.

note: rockusb protocol is not supported, as booting with u-boot will allow using things like dfu / ums / fastboot

Add support for uploading blods to the maskrom memory using Rockchip maskrom protocol. Signed-off-by: Arnaud Patard <[email protected]>

``offset`` is too generic, so rename it to ``class_offset``. Signed-off-by: Arnaud Patard <[email protected]>

rgantois · 2025-02-21T08:32:14Z

That is a very interesting contribution :) thanks a lot!

I'll have to take some time to review it thoroughly, but at first glance the overall code organization looks good to me.

I'll see if I can get it to work on RK3308 since I have a rockpis lying around.

apatard · 2025-02-21T10:32:47Z

fyi, this u-boot series may be interesting: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=445397 as, maybe, we can avoid having to download u-boot proper with DFU. I've yet to test it and check it's working as I understand.

…in files Add support for reading and sending rockchip binary files, made with boot_merger. Signed-off-by: Arnaud Patard <[email protected]>

apatard · 2025-02-21T14:12:17Z

fwiw, tested this series, and managed to boot u-boot proper without DFU on rk3399 and rk3588. On rk3588, I've had to disable rc4 encryption so I've updated the PR accordingly

rgantois · 2025-03-19T15:56:42Z

Hi, I'm starting to review this and there's one thing I've noticed so far: your series is missing documentation on the images which need to be passed to snagrecover. Every SoC family needs a section in docs/fw_binaries.md which describes which firmware binaries are expected by snagrecover and what these binaries contain.

The README will also have to be updated to specify that Rockchip SoCs are supported.

I'll come back with more details once I've had time to test and review this in depth.

rgantois

This looks pretty good! Apart for the comments in this review, there's also the point about docs/fw_binaries.md that I mentionned before.

I've confirmed that the first stage part works with a RockPiS board but unfortunately, there isn't SPL DFU support for the RK3308 SoC in U-Boot, so I couldn't test the second stage.

Thanks!

src/snagrecover/firmware/rk_fw.py

src/snagrecover/supported_socs.yaml

src/snagrecover/recoveries/rockchip.py

src/snagrecover/templates/rockchip-merger.yaml

rgantois · 2025-03-20T10:13:49Z

src/snagrecover/recoveries/rockchip.py

+			logger.error("Missing u-boot.itb DFU partition")
+		dfu_cmd = dfu.DFU(dev, stm32=False)
+		dfu_cmd.get_status()
+		with open(recovery_config["firmware"]["u-boot-fit"]["path"], "rb") as fd:


this is firmware blob handling so it should really be done in firmware/rk_fw.py. You can take a look at am62x firmware handling which is quite similar.

I've updated the code to move it to rk_fw.py. I hope it's better now.

apatard · 2025-03-21T09:05:36Z

I've confirmed that the first stage part works with a RockPiS board but unfortunately, there isn't SPL DFU support for the RK3308 SoC in U-Boot, so I couldn't test the second stage.

For SPL DFU, I've tested it on rk3399 with patches I've sent on the u-boot mailing list. The same day someone from Radxa sent patches for a bunch of rockchip SoCs to enable it but I've not tested the serie. You may want to test that. Nevertheless, these days, I've been using the ramboot-v1 patches mentioned here and they're working at least on rk3399 and rk3588*. It should work on rk3308 too.

oli-ben

Hello Arnaud, thanks very much for your work!

I have tested this on an RK3399 using DFU and successfully booted.

I have not tried the UBoot changes that allow using it without DFU.
I do think more documentation would be helpful for users to be able to use this feature.

src/snagrecover/protocols/rockchip.py

oli-ben · 2025-03-24T09:31:33Z

src/snagrecover/recoveries/rockchip.py

+			logger.info(f"Sleeping {delay}ms")
+			time.sleep(delay / 1000)
+	else:
+		cli_error("Missing xpl or code471/code472 binary configuration")


I think "Missing xPL or code471 ('*_ddr_*.bin')/code472 (*_usbplug_*.bin) binary configuration" would be even more helpful, as this would indicate what binaries "code471" and "code472" are supposed to be, which is not necessarily obvious if you're trying to use the tools without being super familiar with Rockchip internals.

oli-ben · 2025-04-03T12:24:08Z

src/snagrecover/templates/rockchip-merger.yaml

+  path: rk3399_uboot.bin
+u-boot-fit:
+  # proper u-boot
+  path: u-boot.itb


When I tested this on RK3399, trying to load u-boot.itb directly failed for me.

Loading simple-bin.fit.itb, however, worked perfectly.
This required quite a few patches to U-Boot (including some specific to my board, which has rather poor support upstream).

weird. I'll test later if the simple-bin.fit.itb is working for me too. In this case, I'll update things to use it.

src/snagrecover/templates/rockchip-merger.yaml

Add support for booting a rockchip bin file, made with boot_merger. It can be: - a file containing the rockchip miniloader, but in this case, it's not useful, as rockusb is not implemented - a file containing uboot tpl and spl. In this case, if u-boot is configured for SPL DFU, the snagrecover configuration file may specify an u-boot FIT image to load into the first DFU slot. This will allow booting u-boot proper and then to fastboot/ums/dfu/... to flash. Signed-off-by: Arnaud Patard <[email protected]>

rgantois

Thanks for the improvements, there are still a few changes needed, mostly in the doc section. The rest looks good to me.

rgantois · 2025-04-15T14:52:48Z

src/snagrecover/protocols/rockchip.py

@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@



looks like these changes should be in the first patch of the series: "Add rockchip maskrom support"

rgantois · 2025-04-15T14:55:57Z

src/snagrecover/protocols/rockchip.py

@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@

 logger = logging.getLogger("snagrecover")

+USB_REQUEST_TYPE_VENDOR = (0x02 << 5)


please use usb.TYPE_VENDOR instead

rgantois · 2025-04-15T15:15:19Z

src/snagrecover/firmware/rk_fw.py

@@ -12,28 +12,29 @@
 import logging


Same comment as for protocols/rockchip.py, these changes should be in the commit that creates the file, not this one

rgantois · 2025-04-15T15:22:11Z

docs/fw_binaries.md

@@ -289,3 +289,100 @@ extract the FSBL and PMUFW from the complete boot image.
 configuration:
 * path

+## For Rockchip devices
+
+While it is possible to use the DDR init files and SPL files from Rockchip,


is it really possible to use snagrecover with the prebuilt SPL images from Rockchip? I don't think that's true in the general case, since they don't have DFU support.

rgantois · 2025-04-15T15:23:32Z

docs/fw_binaries.md

+it is easier to use the files generated by u-boot as support for the
+Rokchip USB protocol is not implemented.
+Nevertheless, this means that to boot u-boot proper, u-boot has to be
+patched to get support for:


I think we should be clear here: using the prebuilt Rockchip SPL images doesn't work with Snagrecover. People have to patch U-Boot and build the images themselves.

rgantois · 2025-04-15T15:24:44Z

docs/fw_binaries.md

+The ``tpl/u-boot-tpl-dtb.bin``, ``spl/u-boot-spl-dtb.bin``, ``u-boot.itb``
+files are generated during u-boot's build. Please note has the ``LOADER_OPTION``
+is not handled by snagboot.
+


Please also include a specification of snagrecover firmware names and parameters in the same format as for the other SoC families in this documentation. I think it's especially important to describe the "delay" parameter.

rgantois · 2025-04-15T15:25:08Z

docs/fw_binaries.md

+when booting. It's due to the ``u-boot-rockchip-usb472.bin`` binary overwriting
+the ATAGS provided by the TPL. A possible fix would be to patch u-boot with
+https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/commit/a6e85a35b50ade7df5f32092c1cc05ade303a22a.
+


rgantois · 2025-04-15T15:25:18Z

docs/fw_binaries.md

+- ``mkimage-in-simple-bin.mkimage-u-boot-tpl`` or ``mkimage-in-simple-bin.mkimage-rockchip-tpl``
+- ``mkimage-in-simple-bin.mkimage-u-boot-spl``
+- ``u-boot.itb``
+


apatard added 2 commits February 20, 2025 09:49

src/snagrecover/protocols/rockchip.py: Add rockchip maskrom support

5e74917

Add support for uploading blods to the maskrom memory using Rockchip maskrom protocol. Signed-off-by: Arnaud Patard <[email protected]>

BinFileHeader(): rename offset field

bf62819

``offset`` is too generic, so rename it to ``class_offset``. Signed-off-by: Arnaud Patard <[email protected]>

apatard force-pushed the rockchip branch from 9a5548c to 8e717c6 Compare February 20, 2025 14:05

apatard marked this pull request as ready for review February 20, 2025 14:05

src/snagrecover/firmware/rk_fw.py: Add support for sending rockchip b…

8fcddbc

…in files Add support for reading and sending rockchip binary files, made with boot_merger. Signed-off-by: Arnaud Patard <[email protected]>

apatard force-pushed the rockchip branch from 8e717c6 to 2575d98 Compare February 21, 2025 14:10

apatard force-pushed the rockchip branch from 2575d98 to 4d669d8 Compare February 25, 2025 17:25

rgantois requested changes Mar 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

apatard force-pushed the rockchip branch from 4d669d8 to f50c7d3 Compare March 21, 2025 17:38

oli-ben linked an issue Mar 24, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request

Rockchip support #43

Open

oli-ben reviewed Apr 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

apatard force-pushed the rockchip branch from f50c7d3 to 5b21cdd Compare April 4, 2025 10:00

rgantois requested changes Apr 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

		@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@

		logger = logging.getLogger("snagrecover")

		USB_REQUEST_TYPE_VENDOR = (0x02 << 5)

Rockchip SoC support #56

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Rockchip SoC support #56

Uh oh!

Conversation

apatard commented Feb 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rgantois commented Feb 21, 2025

Uh oh!

apatard commented Feb 21, 2025

Uh oh!

apatard commented Feb 21, 2025

Uh oh!

rgantois commented Mar 19, 2025

Uh oh!

rgantois left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

apatard commented Mar 21, 2025

Uh oh!

oli-ben left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rgantois left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

apatard commented Feb 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading