On 08:34-20231106, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
Hi Nishanth!
On November 4, 2023 thus sayeth Nishanth Menon:
With the upcoming folder separation, there is no further need to depend on am625-binman.dtsi. Duplicate the existing definitions to u-boot.dtsi and r5.dts as appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com
Reviewed-by: Bryan Brattlof bb@ti.com
arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-beagleplay-u-boot.dtsi | 160 +++++++++++++++++-- arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-r5-beagleplay.dts | 39 +++++ 2 files changed, 184 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
...
-&spl_am625_sk_dtb_unsigned {
- filename = SPL_AM625_BEAGLEPLAY_DTB;
-};
- ti-spl_unsigned {
filename = "tispl.bin_unsigned";If all of the beagle-plays are using the GP security variant shouldn't we remove the _unsigned?
Today, they are GP, but there is already plans being discussed for hs-fs variants - timelines aren't very clear though.
pad-byte = <0xff>;...
-&am625_sk_dtb_unsigned {
- filename = AM625_BEAGLEPLAY_DTB;
- u-boot_unsigned {
filename = "u-boot.img_unsigned";And here? I don't really have an opinion either way. Just curious if we've thought about that.
pad-byte = <0xff>;~Bryan