| Message ID | 20230207234239.30720-1-afd@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Ryan Eatmon |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [meta-ti,master/kirkstone,1/8] ti-rtos-firmware: Use ti-k3-secdev if TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3 not defined | expand |
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 05:42:32PM -0600, Andrew Davis via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > Use ti-k3-secdev native package to provide secure-binary-image.sh script > when it is not passed on as an environment variable. This fixes and issue Fixes *an* issue > with AM64xx which is always HS but should not require TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG > when building for HS-FS platforms. And GP? > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com> > --- > meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb | 9 ++++----- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb > index 9a6da088..6c59b8ab 100644 > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb > @@ -31,9 +31,11 @@ CLEANBROKEN = "1" > PR = "${INC_PR}.0" > > # Secure Build > +include recipes-ti/includes/ti-paths.inc Set TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR here instead of including ti-paths.inc? > DEPENDS += "openssl-native" > - > -TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG ?= "" > +DEPENDS:append = "${@ '' if d.getVar('TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3') else ' ti-k3-secdev-native' }" Should probably use DEPENDS += here instead of a generic :append override. As :append and :remove are almost impossible to fight/override downstream, it is recommended to use += whenever possible, like in this case... > +TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG = "${@ d.getVar('TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3') or d.getVar('TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR') }" > +export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG > > RTOS_ETH_FW_DIR = "${S}/ti-eth/${PLAT_SFX}" > RTOS_DM_FW_DIR = "${S}/ti-dm/${PLAT_SFX}" > @@ -49,7 +51,6 @@ DM_FIRMWARE = "ipc_echo_testb_mcu1_0_release_strip.xer5f" > > # J721e HS support > do_install:prepend:j721e-hs-evm() { > - export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} > ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ > mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ > ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ > @@ -80,7 +81,6 @@ do_install:prepend:j721e-hs-evm() { > > # J7200 HS support > do_install:prepend:j7200-hs-evm() { > - export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} > ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ > mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ > ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ > @@ -101,7 +101,6 @@ do_install:prepend:j7200-hs-evm() { > > # J721s2 HS support > do_install:prepend:j721s2-hs-evm() { > - export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} > ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ > mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ > ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ > -- > 2.39.1
On 2/10/23 3:02 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 05:42:32PM -0600, Andrew Davis via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >> Use ti-k3-secdev native package to provide secure-binary-image.sh script >> when it is not passed on as an environment variable. This fixes and issue > > Fixes *an* issue > ACK > >> with AM64xx which is always HS but should not require TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG >> when building for HS-FS platforms. > > And GP? > AM64 is HS-FS only :) But yes, this fixes GP building too. Will add to the message. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com> >> --- >> meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb | 9 ++++----- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb >> index 9a6da088..6c59b8ab 100644 >> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb >> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb >> @@ -31,9 +31,11 @@ CLEANBROKEN = "1" >> PR = "${INC_PR}.0" >> >> # Secure Build >> +include recipes-ti/includes/ti-paths.inc > > Set TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR here instead of including ti-paths.inc? > Sure, and if we really do not like this include I can drop it everywhere in the next spin. > >> DEPENDS += "openssl-native" >> - >> -TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG ?= "" >> +DEPENDS:append = "${@ '' if d.getVar('TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3') else ' ti-k3-secdev-native' }" > > Should probably use DEPENDS += here instead of a generic :append override. > As :append and :remove are almost impossible to fight/override downstream, > it is recommended to use += whenever possible, like in this case... > I'm never really sure which is right, the docs all seem to say to use :append/:remove when possible, but I can see it being a pain to override later.. Andrew > >> +TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG = "${@ d.getVar('TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3') or d.getVar('TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR') }" >> +export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG >> >> RTOS_ETH_FW_DIR = "${S}/ti-eth/${PLAT_SFX}" >> RTOS_DM_FW_DIR = "${S}/ti-dm/${PLAT_SFX}" >> @@ -49,7 +51,6 @@ DM_FIRMWARE = "ipc_echo_testb_mcu1_0_release_strip.xer5f" >> >> # J721e HS support >> do_install:prepend:j721e-hs-evm() { >> - export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} >> ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ >> mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ >> ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ >> @@ -80,7 +81,6 @@ do_install:prepend:j721e-hs-evm() { >> >> # J7200 HS support >> do_install:prepend:j7200-hs-evm() { >> - export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} >> ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ >> mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ >> ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ >> @@ -101,7 +101,6 @@ do_install:prepend:j7200-hs-evm() { >> >> # J721s2 HS support >> do_install:prepend:j721s2-hs-evm() { >> - export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} >> ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ >> mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ >> ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ >> -- >> 2.39.1
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 03:13:15PM -0600, Andrew Davis wrote: > On 2/10/23 3:02 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 05:42:32PM -0600, Andrew Davis via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > >>Use ti-k3-secdev native package to provide secure-binary-image.sh script > >>when it is not passed on as an environment variable. This fixes and issue > > > >Fixes *an* issue > > > > ACK > > > > >>with AM64xx which is always HS but should not require TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG > >>when building for HS-FS platforms. > > > >And GP? > > > > AM64 is HS-FS only :) Don't we also have GP variant of AM64 covered in the configs? > But yes, this fixes GP building too. Will add to the message. > > > > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com> > >>--- > >> meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb | 9 ++++----- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb > >>index 9a6da088..6c59b8ab 100644 > >>--- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb > >>+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb > >>@@ -31,9 +31,11 @@ CLEANBROKEN = "1" > >> PR = "${INC_PR}.0" > >> # Secure Build > >>+include recipes-ti/includes/ti-paths.inc > > > >Set TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR here instead of including ti-paths.inc? > > > > Sure, and if we really do not like this include I can drop it everywhere > in the next spin. Would be nice, thank you! > >> DEPENDS += "openssl-native" > >>- > >>-TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG ?= "" > >>+DEPENDS:append = "${@ '' if d.getVar('TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3') else ' ti-k3-secdev-native' }" > > > >Should probably use DEPENDS += here instead of a generic :append override. > >As :append and :remove are almost impossible to fight/override downstream, > >it is recommended to use += whenever possible, like in this case... > > > > I'm never really sure which is right, the docs all seem to say to use > :append/:remove when possible, but I can see it being a pain to override later.. Hmm, can you point to such instances? That needs to get fixed... In general, using :append/:remove is justifiable when used with another override, like VAR:append:k3 and such. Because you shouldn't mix += and an override. The biggest obvious and documented difference between += and :append is that the first adds a whitespace and the other does not. BTW, there's .= that behaves like += but does not add a whitespace: https://docs.yoctoproject.org/bitbake/2.2/bitbake-user-manual/bitbake-user-manual-metadata.html#appending-and-prepending-with-spaces https://docs.yoctoproject.org/bitbake/2.2/bitbake-user-manual/bitbake-user-manual-metadata.html#appending-and-prepending-without-spaces But the issue comes from the fact that :append and :remove are just special cases of regular overrides and get collected and processed at the very end of the parsing process (unlike += and .= which are processed on the spot). There's no implied order of the overrides, unfortunately... > >>+TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG = "${@ d.getVar('TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3') or d.getVar('TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR') }" > >>+export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG > >> RTOS_ETH_FW_DIR = "${S}/ti-eth/${PLAT_SFX}" > >> RTOS_DM_FW_DIR = "${S}/ti-dm/${PLAT_SFX}" > >>@@ -49,7 +51,6 @@ DM_FIRMWARE = "ipc_echo_testb_mcu1_0_release_strip.xer5f" > >> # J721e HS support > >> do_install:prepend:j721e-hs-evm() { > >>- export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} > >> ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ > >> mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ > >> ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ > >>@@ -80,7 +81,6 @@ do_install:prepend:j721e-hs-evm() { > >> # J7200 HS support > >> do_install:prepend:j7200-hs-evm() { > >>- export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} > >> ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ > >> mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ > >> ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ > >>@@ -101,7 +101,6 @@ do_install:prepend:j7200-hs-evm() { > >> # J721s2 HS support > >> do_install:prepend:j721s2-hs-evm() { > >>- export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} > >> ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ > >> mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ > >> ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ > >>-- > >>2.39.1
Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> escreveu no dia sexta, 10/02/2023 à(s) 21:50: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 03:13:15PM -0600, Andrew Davis wrote: > > On 2/10/23 3:02 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > >On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 05:42:32PM -0600, Andrew Davis via > lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > >>Use ti-k3-secdev native package to provide secure-binary-image.sh > script > > >>when it is not passed on as an environment variable. This fixes and > issue > > > > > >Fixes *an* issue > > > > > > > ACK > > > > > > > >>with AM64xx which is always HS but should not require TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG > > >>when building for HS-FS platforms. > > > > > >And GP? > > > > > > > AM64 is HS-FS only :) > > Don't we also have GP variant of AM64 covered in the configs? > > > > But yes, this fixes GP building too. Will add to the message. > > > > > > > >> > > >>Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com> > > >>--- > > >> meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb | 9 ++++----- > > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > >> > > >>diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb > b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb > > >>index 9a6da088..6c59b8ab 100644 > > >>--- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb > > >>+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb > > >>@@ -31,9 +31,11 @@ CLEANBROKEN = "1" > > >> PR = "${INC_PR}.0" > > >> # Secure Build > > >>+include recipes-ti/includes/ti-paths.inc > > > > > >Set TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR here instead of including ti-paths.inc? > > > > > > > Sure, and if we really do not like this include I can drop it everywhere > > in the next spin. > > Would be nice, thank you! > Even with the include we need to set the default for the TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR for the cases when the meta-ti-extras layer is not used. +# set a default value for TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR +export TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR = "${STAGING_DIR_NATIVE}${datadir}/ti/ti-k3-secdev" include recipes-ti/includes/ti-paths.inc +1 for removing the include everywhere and replacing the variables they set with something unix FHS. Jose > > > >> DEPENDS += "openssl-native" > > >>- > > >>-TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG ?= "" > > >>+DEPENDS:append = "${@ '' if d.getVar('TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3') else ' > ti-k3-secdev-native' }" > > > > > >Should probably use DEPENDS += here instead of a generic :append > override. > > >As :append and :remove are almost impossible to fight/override > downstream, > > >it is recommended to use += whenever possible, like in this case... > > > > > > > I'm never really sure which is right, the docs all seem to say to use > > :append/:remove when possible, but I can see it being a pain to override > later.. > > Hmm, can you point to such instances? That needs to get fixed... > > In general, using :append/:remove is justifiable when used with another > override, like VAR:append:k3 and such. Because you shouldn't mix += and > an override. > > The biggest obvious and documented difference between += and :append is > that > the first adds a whitespace and the other does not. BTW, there's .= that > behaves like += but does not add a whitespace: > > https://docs.yoctoproject.org/bitbake/2.2/bitbake-user-manual/bitbake-user-manual-metadata.html#appending-and-prepending-with-spaces > > https://docs.yoctoproject.org/bitbake/2.2/bitbake-user-manual/bitbake-user-manual-metadata.html#appending-and-prepending-without-spaces > > But the issue comes from the fact that :append and :remove are just > special > cases of regular overrides and get collected and processed at the very end > of > the parsing process (unlike += and .= which are processed on the spot). > There's no implied order of the overrides, unfortunately... > > > > >>+TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG = "${@ d.getVar('TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3') or > d.getVar('TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR') }" > > >>+export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG > > >> RTOS_ETH_FW_DIR = "${S}/ti-eth/${PLAT_SFX}" > > >> RTOS_DM_FW_DIR = "${S}/ti-dm/${PLAT_SFX}" > > >>@@ -49,7 +51,6 @@ DM_FIRMWARE = > "ipc_echo_testb_mcu1_0_release_strip.xer5f" > > >> # J721e HS support > > >> do_install:prepend:j721e-hs-evm() { > > >>- export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} > > >> ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ > > >> mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ > > >> ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh > ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ > > >>@@ -80,7 +81,6 @@ do_install:prepend:j721e-hs-evm() { > > >> # J7200 HS support > > >> do_install:prepend:j7200-hs-evm() { > > >>- export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} > > >> ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ > > >> mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ > > >> ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh > ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ > > >>@@ -101,7 +101,6 @@ do_install:prepend:j7200-hs-evm() { > > >> # J721s2 HS support > > >> do_install:prepend:j721s2-hs-evm() { > > >>- export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} > > >> ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ > > >> mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ > > >> ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh > ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ > > >>-- > > >>2.39.1 > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#15809): > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/15809 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/96819771/5052612 > Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/leave/11369865/5052612/926574700/xyzzy > [quaresma.jose@gmail.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >
diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb index 9a6da088..6c59b8ab 100644 --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb @@ -31,9 +31,11 @@ CLEANBROKEN = "1" PR = "${INC_PR}.0" # Secure Build +include recipes-ti/includes/ti-paths.inc DEPENDS += "openssl-native" - -TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG ?= "" +DEPENDS:append = "${@ '' if d.getVar('TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3') else ' ti-k3-secdev-native' }" +TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG = "${@ d.getVar('TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG_K3') or d.getVar('TI_K3_SECDEV_INSTALL_DIR') }" +export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG RTOS_ETH_FW_DIR = "${S}/ti-eth/${PLAT_SFX}" RTOS_DM_FW_DIR = "${S}/ti-dm/${PLAT_SFX}" @@ -49,7 +51,6 @@ DM_FIRMWARE = "ipc_echo_testb_mcu1_0_release_strip.xer5f" # J721e HS support do_install:prepend:j721e-hs-evm() { - export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ @@ -80,7 +81,6 @@ do_install:prepend:j721e-hs-evm() { # J7200 HS support do_install:prepend:j7200-hs-evm() { - export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \ @@ -101,7 +101,6 @@ do_install:prepend:j7200-hs-evm() { # J721s2 HS support do_install:prepend:j721s2-hs-evm() { - export TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG=${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG} ( cd ${RTOS_DM_FW_DIR}; \ mv ${DM_FIRMWARE} ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned; \ ${TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG}/scripts/secure-binary-image.sh ${DM_FIRMWARE}.unsigned ${DM_FIRMWARE}; \
Use ti-k3-secdev native package to provide secure-binary-image.sh script when it is not passed on as an environment variable. This fixes and issue with AM64xx which is always HS but should not require TI_SECURE_DEV_PKG when building for HS-FS platforms. Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com> --- meta-ti-bsp/recipes-ti/ti-rtos-bin/ti-rtos-firmware.bb | 9 ++++----- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)