Hi Simon, On Thu Aug 31, 2023 at 9:54 AM CEST, neil.armstrong wrote: > > Thanks for your efforts on this. I look forward to seeing where it ends up.
I hope we can get it to at least boot! > >> Honestly, in my opinion, including proprietary and poorly-written > >> Amlogic utilities lacking a proper license, into U-Boot looks like a bad > >> idea. > > > > With Binman, we don't really include them in U-Boot; we allow them to > > be fetched easily so that a complete build can be produced. Acknowledged. > > I don't like it either, but for users it is better than doing the > > build manually. > > I'll rather spend time and effort to have a fully-upstream TF-A boot chain > for Amlogic SoC (when possible) that maintaining support for bulky > closed-source > x86-64 binary only tools. The tools aren't even officially distributed. I agree with Neil here. I think having U-Boot SPL for Amlogic SoCs, along with a unified way to sign it across all SoCs, is more worth the effort than trying to get poorly-written Amlogic utilities to work, along with a fully proprietary "Trusted Firmware" (it's not that secure) boot chain. I also forgot to point out that these tools are x86_64-only, so if you wanted to compile U-Boot on any other architecture it wouldn't work at all. But this RFC patch does show how binman can be used for making all that complex signing automatically. I appreciate the effort. > > Neil > > > > >> > >> [1]: > >> https://git.vitali64.duckdns.org/misc/u-boot-kii-pro.git/log/?h=wip/spl > >> [2]: > >> https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a.git/tree/plat/amlogic > >> > >> Cheers. > >> > > > > Regards, > > Simon Cheers.