From: Jagan Teki jagan@amarulasolutions.com Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 14:38:06 +0530
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:17 PM Emmanuel Vadot manu@bidouilliste.com wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 22:42:45 +0530 Jagan Teki jagan@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:24 PM Emmanuel Vadot manu@freebsd.org wrote:
Other make_fit script (like imx or sunxi) use the BL31 environment variable to indicate the location of the file. Also do that for rockchip so we don't need to copy the file in the source directory.
Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Vadot manu@freebsd.org
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py index d1faff1957..7bf58e3dd1 100755 --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ def get_bl31_segments_info(bl31_file_name):
def main(): uboot_elf="./u-boot"
- bl31_elf="./bl31.elf"
- bl31_elf=os.getenv("BL31", "./bl31.elf")
Have similar change on my repo.
Better through warning for non BL31 like
if "BL31ELF" in os.environ: bl31_elf=os.getenv("BL31ELF"); else: sys.exit("ERROR: Please export BL31ELF file, check board/rockchip/evb_rk3399/README)
I didn't error for the same reason we don't on Allwinner, CI don't copy this file as part of the test. Yes this does result in a non-working u-boot but the goal of thoses test is just to compile. mksunxi_fit_atf.sh prints a warning, maybe I should just do the same ? Phillipp, what's your view on this ?
Yes, ie what I thought of. I have handle this in BINMAN series, please have look and comment.
And BL31ELF would be proper env than BL31 since rockchip build would require elf and other one has bin, IMHO.
This change is fine with me.
I think we can go with BL31 itself since we need to compatible with existing platforms.
Right. Consistency is good.