Since there were no objections (apart help Kconfig expansion which I
will add) or improvement suggestions to this patch for over 2 weeks
(first patchset submitted on 01.08.24) I am picking it into Tegra
custodian tree.

пн, 12 серп. 2024 р. о 21:42 Tom Rini <[email protected]> пише:
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 08:29:57AM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>
> > сб, 10 серп. 2024 р. о 01:02 Tom Rini <[email protected]> пише:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 08:57:03AM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
> > > > пт, 9 серп. 2024 р. о 08:49 Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> 
> > > > пише:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 7. August 2024 14:10:24 MESZ schrieb Svyatoslav Ryhel 
> > > > > <[email protected]>:
> > > > > >TegraPT is compatible with EFI part but it can't pass Protective MBR 
> > > > > >check.
> > > > > >Skip this check if CONFIG_TEGRA_PARTITION is enabled, storage uclass 
> > > > > >is MMC
> > > > > >and devnum is 0. Note, eMMC on supported devices MUST be aliased to 
> > > > > >mmc0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why wouldn't you use U-Boot's gpt command to fix the non-conformant 
> > > > > partition table?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would love to, but I am forced to use TegraPT and DON'T modify it.
> > > > Tegra114 bootloader is RSA signed and there is no possible way to
> > > > replace it with open source one unless vendor allows this. SO I am
> > > > stuck with vendor bootloader to chainload from which enforces TegraPT
> > > > as well. Modification of existing partition table can irreversibly
> > > > brick the device.
> > >
> > > Can we please incorporate some of this information to the help text, so
> > > it's clear what the use case is? Thanks.
> >
> > Sure, though usually those who know what they are dealing with will
> > understand. BTW, Tom, may I pick patchsets assigned to Thierry (tagr)
> > via Tegra custodian tree if they pass? Even if they, apart being
> > related to Tegra, belong to different subsystems (like this patch and,
> > for example, tegra gpio driver changes).
>
> Yes, that's fine.
>
> --
> Tom

Reply via email to