Hi Andrew
On 18/05/23 22:05, Andrew Davis wrote:
On 5/18/23 9:26 AM, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
By providing entries in the binman node of the device tree, binman will
be able to find and package board config artifacts generated by
TIBoardConfig with sysfw.bin and generate the final image sysfw.itb.
It will also pick out the R5 SPL and sign it with the help of TI signing
entry and generate the final tiboot3.bin.
Entries for A72 build have been added to k3-j721e-binman.dtsi to
generate tispl.bin and u-boot.img.
Support has been added for both HS-SE(SR 1.1), HS-FS(SR 2.0) and GP
images
In HS-SE, the encrypted system firmware binary must be signed along with
the signed certificate binary.
tiboot3.bin and sysfw-j721e_sr1_1-hs.itb: For HS-SE devices
tiboot3.bin_fs and sysfw-j721e_sr2-hs-fs.itb: For HS-FS devices
Do we actually need "tiboot3.bin_fs"? It should be identical to
"tiboot3.bin".
tiboot3.bin_unsigned and sysfw-j721e-gp-evm.itb: For GP devices
I've been thinking about these filenames and what we use as the defaults.
We have 3 revisions {sr1, sr1_1, sr2) to choose from and each has 3
types {"gp", "hs", "hs-fs"}. Which gives 9 combos. For which the type
GP the does not care about revision (the revisions only effected HS parts,
so all revisions look the same for software on GP parts). The revision
SR1.0 was never widely released on HS-FS nor HS-SE, so those two combos
can also be ignored. This gives:
sysfw-j721e-gp.itb
sysfw-j721e_sr1_1-hs.itb
sysfw-j721e_sr1_1-hs-fs.itb
sysfw-j721e_sr2-hs.itb
sysfw-j721e_sr2-hs-fs.itb
So two are missing.
Agreed, will need thosYes we can target e, thanks!
<filename>.bin/img: For HS devices
<filename>.bin_unsigned/img_unsigned: For GP devices
I'm not sure we need these two "_unsigned" images, the signature is
trival to strip out if needed and the signed version boots just
fine on GP devices as SPL knows how to strip out the signature
during boot when it detects it is running on a GP device.
None of the above is a big deal and nothing worth holding up this
series over, I'll send patches later after this is taken into -next.
Yes, based on further comments we can target adding this in v5 or
another patch later on.
Andrew
--
Thanking You
Neha Malcom Francis
