Hi Quentin,
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 at 02:47, Quentin Schulz <quentin.sch...@theobroma-systems.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > On 1/4/23 21:01, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > > > > On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 at 09:42, Quentin Schulz > > <quentin.sch...@theobroma-systems.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> On 12/22/22 00:07, Simon Glass wrote: > >>> Enable multiple-images so we can generate more than one image. Also > >>> add a comment for the end of the #if block. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> (no changes since v5) > >>> > >>> Changes in v5: > >>> - Rename from 'Include binman script in 64-bit boards' > >>> - Drop duplicate #include in rk3368-u-boot.dtsi > >>> - Keep the name as fit for puma > >>> - Drop redundant check for CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_SPI_IMAGE > >>> - Drop imply of BINMAN in Kconfig (rely on ARCH_ROCKCHIP instead) > >>> > >>> arch/arm/dts/rk3399-u-boot.dtsi | 3 ++- > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-u-boot.dtsi > >>> b/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-u-boot.dtsi > >>> index 3c1a15fe51b..85a4f472d5d 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-u-boot.dtsi > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-u-boot.dtsi > >>> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ > >>> > >>> #if defined(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_SPI_IMAGE) && defined(CONFIG_HAS_ROM) > >>> &binman { > >>> + multiple-images; > >>> rom { > >>> filename = "u-boot.rom"; > >>> size = <0x400000>; > >>> @@ -82,7 +83,7 @@ > >>> }; > >>> }; > >>> }; > >>> -#endif > >>> +#endif /* CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_SPI_IMAGE */ > >> > >> && CONFIG_HAS_ROM > >> > >> On a different topic, I'm a bit confused by this u-boot.rom binary. is > >> it not just for Chromebooks? We now have u-boot-rockchip-spi.bin for SPI > >> images but they are different (same as u-boot-rockchip.bin, just > >> formatted in a way it can be flashed on a SPI flash). > > > > The .rom is for SPI flash, not just Chromebooks. Perhaps we should > > unify the two of them? > > > > I was under the impression that this .rom was mostly used for > Chromebooks which is the reason why I didn't change any of it when > adding support for u-boot-rockchip-spi.bin back then since the images > are different (-spi has the u-boot fit instead of legacy, -spi has > support for tpl while .rom only has support for SPL). > > I'm all for unifying them if we can find something that does not make > the ifdef situation in rockchip-u-boot.dtsi more dire :) Great! > > HAS_ROM is enabled on: > TARGET_CHROMEBOOK_JERRY > TARGET_EVB_RK3288 > TARGET_CHROMEBOOK_BOB > TARGET_CHROMEBOOK_KEVIN > > so this binman entry will only be used for the last two (the first two > are handled in arch/arm/dts/rk3288-u-boot.dtsi, but with the same > content as in arch/arm/dts/rk3399-u-boot.dtsi). Hence why I thought it > was Chromebook related :) > > Are there any requirements for those devices that make them require > something different than current u-boot-rockchip-spi.bin? Not that I know of. I can test something if it helps. Regards, Simon