Hi,
On 27/05/2022 20:50, Alper Nebi Yasak wrote:
> On 26/05/2022 17:15, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:28:45AM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>> Any thoughts on how to get the new ti-secure etype work with atf-bl31 and
>>> tee-os etypes so that it can take the data output of those entries and
>>> create
>>> a signed binary with filenames from those entries or atf-bl31-path and
>>> tee-os-path?
>>>
>>> Can something like this work?
>>>
>>> ti-secure {
>>> atf-bl31 {
>>> filename = "bl31.bin";
>>> };
>>> }
>>>
>>> We could probably get rid of filename property from ti-secure etype and use
>>> blob for regular files.
>>>
>>> ti-secure {
>>> blob {
>>> filename = "somefile.ext";
>>> }
>>> }
>
> This would definitely work, see etype/mkimage.py for example. I'd prefer
> to know the file-format details (and maybe replicate them in binman) if
> you could afford to publish them, though...
This is a question to Nishanth/Andrew.
>
>
> Sorry I couldn't look at either series yet, but I see mentions of
> k3_fit_atf.sh, so let me point out another series [1][2] that might also
> interest you:
>
> [1] [RESEND, RFC 0/8] Integration of sysfw and tispl with U-Boot
> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20220406122919.6104-1-n-fran...@ti.com/
>
> [2] [PATCH RFC v2 00/11] Integration of sysfw, tispl and tiboot3
> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20220506043759.8193-1-n-fran...@ti.com/
Thanks for this pointer. I will review those patches and see how we can
consolidate.
cheers,
-roger
