On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 02:58:24PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
Provide user option to skip SPL signature verification for cases where
u-boot is build with SPL support but full U-Boot is also verified without SPL.
If you want to support this feature please add env__spl_skipped = True to your boardenv configuration file.
For example Xilinx Zynq is using this feature where the same U-Boot binary is checked with SPL and without SPL(with FSBL).
Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com
OK, so I'm quite confused as to why there's this patch and also https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/584240/ which I am (or was) about to push (bisecting some patches that had problems, that I had hoped to push out has delayed me pushing a bunch of things). Does Heiko's patch also fix the problem you see? Is one of these better than the other? Thanks!
Changes in v3:
- Remove Stephen's lines
- Fix my misundersting what Stephen was asking for. Use diferent variable name but use origin env__spl_skipped board variable name which was renamed in v2.
Changes in v2:
- nits in commit message
- Rename to env_spl_skipped from env__spl_skipped
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py b/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py index d6502c6e64cb..318e28824cc2 100644 --- a/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py +++ b/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py @@ -307,7 +307,9 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): config_spl = bcfg.get('config_spl', 'n') == 'y' config_spl_serial_support = bcfg.get('config_spl_serial_support', 'n') == 'y'
if config_spl and config_spl_serial_support:
env_spl_skipped = self.config.env.get('env__spl_skipped',False)if config_spl and config_spl_serial_support and not env_spl_skipped: m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_spl_signon] + self.bad_patterns) if m != 0:-- 1.9.1