On 22/05/2022 03:55, Andrew Abbott wrote:
On Thu May 19, 2022 at 9:36 PM AEST, Alper Nebi Yasak wrote:
Do we need the 'idbloader.img' as a build output, assuming we have a working 'u-boot-rockchip.bin'? I'm asking because Simon was trying to drop it in a similar patch [1].
I was keeping it for backwards compatibility, mainly because it's mentioned in 'rockchip.rst' and it implies that 'idbloader.img' goes on a separate partition to 'u-boot.itb' for targets supporting Fastboot. If we can drop it, then I'll gladly do so!
Honestly, I don't know. I was hoping someone else would comment as well. I'm inclined to say we don't need it, as we would ideally be able to extract/replace the 'idbloader.img' from/in working images with binman commands when needed.
With what I said above, I think you should rename this to 'u-boot.rom' and remove the definitions in {rk3288,rk3399}-u-boot.dtsi.
Makes sense to me - I just wonder if the name 'u-boot.rom' is too generic, since it will be an image specifically for Rockchip targets. Then again, perhaps the original 'u-boot-rockchip.bin' name was redundant, since you know what target you're building for by using a specific defconfig in the first place.
I think it's meant to be a step towards unifying the build artifacts and names across the board, which I'd like if it eventually happened. We would have different definitions of the 'u-boot.rom' image for different whatevers, but for every board "Build and write u-boot.rom to SPI flash if it exists" would be valid advice.