| Message ID | 20230929122555.10794-1-jpanis@baylibre.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Ryan Eatmon |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [master/kirkstone] u-boot-ti: Fix SPL binary name for SD/MMC media on HS boards | expand |
On 9/29/23 14:25, Julien Panis wrote: > The SPL binary built by u-boot for SD/MMC/eMMC media on HS platforms is > u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. Thanks to this fix, the binary is properly installed > and deployed. > > Signed-off-by: Julien Panis <jpanis@baylibre.com> > --- > meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > index d9a3a520e857..9ca0fb44d127 100644 > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > @@ -100,9 +100,9 @@ UBOOT_HS_XLD_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" > UBOOT_HS_XLD_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}" > > # HS MLO > -UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot_HS_MLO" > -UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" > -UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" > +UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" > +UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" > +UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" > > # HS ISSW > UBOOT_HS_ISSW_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_ISSW" I'm not sure that this patch should be applied actually. In doc/README.ti-secure, u-boot_HS_MLO is mentioned for Keystone2 Secure Devices. So, maybe this name was used intentionally...(?)
On 10/2/2023 9:06 AM, Julien Panis wrote: > On 9/29/23 14:25, Julien Panis wrote: >> The SPL binary built by u-boot for SD/MMC/eMMC media on HS platforms is >> u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. Thanks to this fix, the binary is properly installed >> and deployed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Julien Panis <jpanis@baylibre.com> >> --- >> meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc | 6 +++--- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >> b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >> index d9a3a520e857..9ca0fb44d127 100644 >> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >> @@ -100,9 +100,9 @@ UBOOT_HS_XLD_IMAGE = >> "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >> UBOOT_HS_XLD_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}" >> # HS MLO >> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot_HS_MLO" >> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" >> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" >> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" >> # HS ISSW >> UBOOT_HS_ISSW_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_ISSW" > > I'm not sure that this patch should be applied actually. > In doc/README.ti-secure, u-boot_HS_MLO is mentioned for Keystone2 Secure > Devices. > So, maybe this name was used intentionally...(?) Ok. I'll stop testing it and wait for further feedback. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#17039): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/17039 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/101656237/6551054 > Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [reatmon@ti.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
On 10/2/23 9:06 AM, Julien Panis wrote: > On 9/29/23 14:25, Julien Panis wrote: >> The SPL binary built by u-boot for SD/MMC/eMMC media on HS platforms is >> u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. Thanks to this fix, the binary is properly installed >> and deployed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Julien Panis <jpanis@baylibre.com> >> --- >> meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc | 6 +++--- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >> index d9a3a520e857..9ca0fb44d127 100644 >> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >> @@ -100,9 +100,9 @@ UBOOT_HS_XLD_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >> UBOOT_HS_XLD_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}" >> # HS MLO >> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot_HS_MLO" >> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" >> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" >> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" >> # HS ISSW >> UBOOT_HS_ISSW_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_ISSW" > > I'm not sure that this patch should be applied actually. > In doc/README.ti-secure, u-boot_HS_MLO is mentioned for Keystone2 Secure Devices. > So, maybe this name was used intentionally...(?) > On Keystone2 HS, we do not use SPL, so the ROM loaded image (MLO) is the normal U-Boot image, we name it u-boot_HS_MLO. For others that do use SPL the ROM image is the SPL, and it is called u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. So this patch has the right idea, just we should add another deployed image var in addition to this one, not replace it, maybe: SPL_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" ... Andrew > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#17039): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/17039 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/101656237/3619733 > Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [afd@ti.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
On 10/2/2023 10:30 AM, Andrew Davis via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > On 10/2/23 9:06 AM, Julien Panis wrote: >> On 9/29/23 14:25, Julien Panis wrote: >>> The SPL binary built by u-boot for SD/MMC/eMMC media on HS platforms is >>> u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. Thanks to this fix, the binary is properly installed >>> and deployed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Julien Panis <jpanis@baylibre.com> >>> --- >>> meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >>> b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >>> index d9a3a520e857..9ca0fb44d127 100644 >>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >>> @@ -100,9 +100,9 @@ UBOOT_HS_XLD_IMAGE = >>> "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >>> UBOOT_HS_XLD_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}" >>> # HS MLO >>> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot_HS_MLO" >>> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >>> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" >>> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" >>> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >>> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" >>> # HS ISSW >>> UBOOT_HS_ISSW_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_ISSW" >> >> I'm not sure that this patch should be applied actually. >> In doc/README.ti-secure, u-boot_HS_MLO is mentioned for Keystone2 >> Secure Devices. >> So, maybe this name was used intentionally...(?) >> > > On Keystone2 HS, we do not use SPL, so the ROM loaded image (MLO) is the > normal U-Boot image, we name it u-boot_HS_MLO. For others that do use SPL > the ROM image is the SPL, and it is called u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. > > So this patch has the right idea, just we should add another deployed image > var in addition to this one, not replace it, maybe: > > SPL_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" > ... And add the appropriate install code later in the file as well. > Andrew > >> >> >> > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#17041): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/17041 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/101656237/6551054 > Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [reatmon@ti.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:44:42AM -0500, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > On 10/2/2023 10:30 AM, Andrew Davis via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > >On 10/2/23 9:06 AM, Julien Panis wrote: > >>On 9/29/23 14:25, Julien Panis wrote: > >>>The SPL binary built by u-boot for SD/MMC/eMMC media on HS platforms is > >>>u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. Thanks to this fix, the binary is properly installed > >>>and deployed. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Julien Panis <jpanis@baylibre.com> > >>>--- > >>> meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc | 6 +++--- > >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>> > >>>diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > >>>b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > >>>index d9a3a520e857..9ca0fb44d127 100644 > >>>--- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > >>>+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > >>>@@ -100,9 +100,9 @@ UBOOT_HS_XLD_IMAGE = > >>>"u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" > >>> UBOOT_HS_XLD_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}" > >>> # HS MLO > >>>-UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot_HS_MLO" > >>>-UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" > >>>-UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" > >>>+UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" > >>>+UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" > >>>+UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" > >>> # HS ISSW > >>> UBOOT_HS_ISSW_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_ISSW" > >> > >>I'm not sure that this patch should be applied actually. > >>In doc/README.ti-secure, u-boot_HS_MLO is mentioned for > >>Keystone2 Secure Devices. > >>So, maybe this name was used intentionally...(?) > >> > > > >On Keystone2 HS, we do not use SPL, so the ROM loaded image (MLO) is the > >normal U-Boot image, we name it u-boot_HS_MLO. For others that do use SPL > >the ROM image is the SPL, and it is called u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. > > > >So this patch has the right idea, just we should add another deployed image > >var in addition to this one, not replace it, maybe: > > > >SPL_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" > >... > > And add the appropriate install code later in the file as well. Was this supposed to be changed from UBOOT_HS_MLO_* -> SPL_HS_MLO_* per the discussion above? Or did I miss something and the old patch got merged: https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-ti/commit/?id=5306d61211edecf3d04cd9e8c0b64cd4a0ef3549
On 10/9/2023 2:58 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:44:42AM -0500, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >> >> >> On 10/2/2023 10:30 AM, Andrew Davis via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >>> On 10/2/23 9:06 AM, Julien Panis wrote: >>>> On 9/29/23 14:25, Julien Panis wrote: >>>>> The SPL binary built by u-boot for SD/MMC/eMMC media on HS platforms is >>>>> u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. Thanks to this fix, the binary is properly installed >>>>> and deployed. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Panis <jpanis@baylibre.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc | 6 +++--- >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >>>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >>>>> index d9a3a520e857..9ca0fb44d127 100644 >>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc >>>>> @@ -100,9 +100,9 @@ UBOOT_HS_XLD_IMAGE = >>>>> "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >>>>> UBOOT_HS_XLD_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}" >>>>> # HS MLO >>>>> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot_HS_MLO" >>>>> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >>>>> -UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" >>>>> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" >>>>> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" >>>>> +UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" >>>>> # HS ISSW >>>>> UBOOT_HS_ISSW_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_ISSW" >>>> >>>> I'm not sure that this patch should be applied actually. >>>> In doc/README.ti-secure, u-boot_HS_MLO is mentioned for >>>> Keystone2 Secure Devices. >>>> So, maybe this name was used intentionally...(?) >>>> >>> >>> On Keystone2 HS, we do not use SPL, so the ROM loaded image (MLO) is the >>> normal U-Boot image, we name it u-boot_HS_MLO. For others that do use SPL >>> the ROM image is the SPL, and it is called u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. >>> >>> So this patch has the right idea, just we should add another deployed image >>> var in addition to this one, not replace it, maybe: >>> >>> SPL_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" >>> ... >> >> And add the appropriate install code later in the file as well. > > Was this supposed to be changed from UBOOT_HS_MLO_* -> SPL_HS_MLO_* per the > discussion above? Or did I miss something and the old patch got merged: Ooops. I accepted it incorrectly... I'll submit the "correct" patch on top of this one. > https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-ti/commit/?id=5306d61211edecf3d04cd9e8c0b64cd4a0ef3549 >
diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc index d9a3a520e857..9ca0fb44d127 100644 --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc @@ -100,9 +100,9 @@ UBOOT_HS_XLD_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" UBOOT_HS_XLD_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_X-LOADER-${MACHINE}" # HS MLO -UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot_HS_MLO" -UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" -UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" +UBOOT_HS_MLO_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO" +UBOOT_HS_MLO_IMAGE = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}-${PV}-${PR}" +UBOOT_HS_MLO_SYMLINK = "u-boot-spl_HS_MLO-${MACHINE}" # HS ISSW UBOOT_HS_ISSW_BINARY = "u-boot-spl_HS_ISSW"
The SPL binary built by u-boot for SD/MMC/eMMC media on HS platforms is u-boot-spl_HS_MLO. Thanks to this fix, the binary is properly installed and deployed. Signed-off-by: Julien Panis <jpanis@baylibre.com> --- meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)