On 10/9/2023 2:58 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:44:42AM -0500, Ryan Eatmon via
lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On 10/2/2023 10:30 AM, Andrew Davis via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On 10/2/23 9:06 AM, Julien Panis wrote:
On 9/29/23 14:25, Julien Panis wrote:
The SPL binary built by u-boot for SD/MMC/eMMC media on HS platforms is
u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. Thanks to this fix, the binary is properly installed
and deployed.
Signed-off-by: Julien Panis <jpa...@baylibre.com>
---
meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc
b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc
index d9a3a520e857..9ca0fb44d127 100644
--- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc
+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc
@@ -100,9 +100,9 @@ UBOOT_HS_XLD_IMAGE =
"u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}"
UBOOT_HS_XLD_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}"
# HS MLO
-UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot_HS_MLO"
-UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}"
-UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}"
+UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO"
+UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}"
+UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}"
# HS ISSW
UBOOT_HS_ISSW_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_ISSW"
I'm not sure that this patch should be applied actually.
In doc/README.ti-secure, u-boot_HS_MLO is mentioned for
Keystone2 Secure Devices.
So, maybe this name was used intentionally...(?)
On Keystone2 HS, we do not use SPL, so the ROM loaded image (MLO) is the
normal U-Boot image, we name it u-boot_HS_MLO. For others that do use SPL
the ROM image is the SPL, and it is called u-boot-spl_HS_MLO.
So this patch has the right idea, just we should add another deployed image
var in addition to this one, not replace it, maybe:
SPL_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO"
...
And add the appropriate install code later in the file as well.
Was this supposed to be changed from UBOOT_HS_MLO_* -> SPL_HS_MLO_* per the
discussion above? Or did I miss something and the old patch got merged:
Ooops. I accepted it incorrectly... I'll submit the "correct" patch on
top of this one.
https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-ti/commit/?id=5306d61211edecf3d04cd9e8c0b64cd4a0ef3549
--
Ryan Eatmon reat...@ti.com
-----------------------------------------
Texas Instruments, Inc. - LCPD - MGTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#17085):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/17085
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/101656237/21656
Group Owner: meta-ti+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/leave/6695321/21656/1393940836/xyzzy
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
