On 18.08.21 07:19, Heiko Schocher wrote: > Hello Fabio, > > On 18.08.21 03:44, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> Hi Heiko, >> >> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 12:56 AM Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote: >> >>> I am unsure here, if it makes sense to overwrite flash.bin with the >>> binary which contains SPL and u-boot.itb. May others want to use >>> them (as I currently use them for signing them) >> >> I thought about that too. Frieder suggested I use a different name for >> the SPL file, such as spl.bin. >> >> I am concerned that renaming flash.bin to spl.bin may break i.MX8MM >> targets that do not use binman, such as the verdin-imx8mm board. > > Hmm... okay, but I do not understand why spl code is named flash.bin > than? > > spl.bin seems better to me. > >>> Why not imx-boot as image name as in NXP sources? >> >> NXP U-Boot also generates the final binary called "flash.bin" > > What do you mean with "final binary"? The binary which contains > SPL and u-boot (and all other needed binaries)? > > If so, is this really called flash.bin? So *same* name as "SPL only" > code? I could not believe this... > > NXP code does this not for all imx8 derivates, see comment: > > https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FFreescale%2Fmeta-freescale%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Frecipes-bsp%2Fu-boot%2Fu-boot-fslc_2021.07.bb%23L31&data=04%7C01%7Cfrieder.schrempf%40kontron.de%7C5a0d20c6c27e4d5c38bc08d96207bf7f%7C8c9d3c973fd941c8a2b1646f3942daf1%7C0%7C0%7C637648607684078827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Cbq1Eenz7z8BySR12NwZi2T0s1krCFQmDP4jeBMJle8%3D&reserved=0 > > But yes, the container is named "flash.bin"... > >> My main motivation for sending this RFC patch is to avoid imx8mm-evk >> breakage when people upgrade >> to U-Boor 2021.07. > > U-Boot 2021.07 is broken? Or do you mean 2021.10? > > Ah, *now* I got it commit "8996e6b7c6a1" introduced a SPL based "flash.bin" > through arch/arm/dts/imx8mm-evk-u-boot.dtsi: > > + flash { > + mkimage { > + args = "-n spl/u-boot-spl.cfgout -T imx8mimage -e > 0x7e1000"; > + > + blob { > + filename = "u-boot-spl-ddr.bin"; > + }; > + }; > + }; > > -> now we have a "flash.bin" with SPL only code and a "flash.bin" > Makefile target which produces "flash.bin" which is a container > of SPL, U-Boot, dtb, atf, ... and may much more binaries... > > :-(
Exactly, that's the main problem. > > Added Peng to cc, as he did this conversion for imx8mm-evk-u-boot.dtsi > >> Prior to 2021.07: only flash.bin was required. Yocto recipe, for >> example, will no longer produce a bootable image >> after the upgrade to 2021.07. This is the breakage I would like to avoid. > > I vote for renaming flash.bin (in SPL case) to spl.bin. It seems to > me there are many imx8*-u-boot.dtsi file now which use this part: Yes, I think we should introduce a common dtsi file with a binman configuration that uses spl.bin for the SPL image and flash.bin for the final image. Then we could switch all boards to use this config step by step afterwards. > > + flash { > + mkimage { > + args = "-n spl/u-boot-spl.cfgout -T imx8mimage -e > 0x7e1000"; > + > + blob { > + filename = "u-boot-spl-ddr.bin"; > + }; > + }; > + }; > > But may this rename is no problem, as all boards use the "flash.bin" > container? > > I don;t know... > > bye, > Heiko >