On 20/01/24 00:47, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 23:20-20240119, Apurva Nandan wrote: [...]
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..d0d49b5bbe --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi @@ -0,0 +1,345 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +/*
- Copyright (C) 2023 Texas Instruments Incorporated -https://www.ti.com/
- */
+#include "k3-binman.dtsi"
+#ifdef CONFIG_TARGET_J784S4_R5_EVM
+&rcfg_yaml_tifs {
- config = "tifs-rm-cfg.yaml";
+};
+&binman {
- tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin {
filename = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin";https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20240103174756.xa4rzbn4klk5gv2x@aware/
You haven't responded on thread why "Prefer #1 - j784s4 binman template" is not feasible or not desirable.
Something like:
in j784s4-binman.dtsi:
&binman { j784s4_tiboot3_hs_fs_template: template-9 {
and then in sk.dtsi:
sk.dtsi means sk-uboot.dtsi or sk-binman.dtsi?
&binman { ti-j784s4-hs-evm.bin { insert-template =<&j784s4_tiboot3_hs_fs_template>; }; };
This allows boards to readily include the template for the binaries of choice and generate just relevant output. Wont it save much confusion?
[...]
It is still little unclear what is the full thing that you are recommending to implement here. From what I understood, is it as follows?
- Three binman files will be there: j784s4-binman.dtsi (soc binman), j784s4-evm-binman.dtsi and am69-sk-binman.dtsi (board binman) - j784s4-binman.dtsi will be a SoC binman, and will have only templates for all tiboot3 gp, hs, hsfs, and tispl/uboot - The board binman files will include these templates and update the dtb files in them. - Final board.dts will use the correct board-binman.dtsi files
Please correct wherever wrong.