Hi Michal,
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 01:32, Michal Simek michal.simek@amd.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 11/2/24 17:28, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 at 14:52, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 02:09:38PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 11/1/24 09:27, Michal Simek wrote:
On 10/31/24 19:03, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Michal,
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 at 10:33, Michal Simek michal.simek@amd.com wrote: > > There is necessary to do some steps to compose boot images. These steps > were in scripts in layers for a while. That's why introduce description via > binman to simplify wiring and remove all scripting around. > This should make sure that everybody is up2date with the latest versions. > > The first step is to create fit image with DTBs with descriptions in > configuration node which is written as regular expression to match all SOM > versions. > Description is there for k24 and k26 in spite of low level psu_init > configuration is different. The reason is that it goes to u-boot.itb image > which is the same for k24 and k26. > u-boot.itb is another image which is generated. It is normally generated > via arch/arm/mach-zynqmp/mkimage_fit_atf.sh but this script is supposed to > be deprecated. > FIT image by purpose is using 64bit addresses to have default option to > move images to high DDR (above 4GB). TF-A and TEE are optional components > but in the most cases TF-A is present all the time and TEE(OP-TEE) is used > by some configurations too. > > 3rd generated image is boot.bin with updated user field which contains > version number. This image can be used with updated Image Selector > which supports A/B update mechanisms with rollback protection. > > 4th image is image.bin which binary file which contains boot.bin and > u-boot.itb together and can be programmed via origin Image Selector. > This image can be also used for creating one capsule which contains both > boot images (in SPL boot flow). > > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@amd.com > --- > > Currently I have this for testing purpose only to find missing bits and > pieces in binman for cases I want to support. > > This patch depends on > https://lore.kernel.org/r/ fbed0251437b61a2f7a85596d7403b5b9c8237c1.1728306322.git.michal.simek@amd.com > > --- > arch/arm/dts/Makefile | 1 + > arch/arm/dts/zynqmp-som-binman.dts | 224 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > arch/arm/mach-zynqmp/Kconfig | 17 ++ > configs/xilinx_zynqmp_kria_defconfig | 2 + > 4 files changed, 244 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/zynqmp-som-binman.dts
I'm pleased to see this. My only suggestion is to use '/bits/ 64' instead of the macros, for 64-bit values.
When I was playing with it some time ago it didn't work but it works now that's why no issue with it.
One more thing on this one. I pretty much dislike that images are generated to u-boot root folder. Isn't there a way that they will be written to separate folder (deploy for example)?
Or perhaps $(obj) ?
Yes $(obj) is where they end up today. I consider output files from binman to be on the same level as other files created by the build. Then again, it does end up a bit of a mess, when mixed with the output files.
Some cleanup would be good. I remember a lot of discussion about if people should be using u-boot or u-boot.elf. Answer was simple but if output images are in separate folder it would IMHO better to understand.
I am not keen on 'deploy' as it nothing is being deployed - also it sounds like a satellite or military attack.
No problem with different name.
One long-standing issue is that intermediate files are created in the same directory. Perhaps we could put those in a binman-tmp directory? They are necessary when things go wrong, but don't need to be used all the time.
+1
But I think we should try to move also that images which users should be using to separate folder completely. Again it doesn't need to be done by default but a way to configure it would be good.
Perhaps file an issue for this? I haven't got to it yet.
Regards, Simon