Re: [meta-ti][scarthgap][PATCH] conf: machine: am69: Update filenames for initial bootloader tiboot3

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 08:55:49PM +0530, Aniket Limaye via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/02/25 20:16, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 2/3/2025 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote:
> >>Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot recipe
> >>and also the files expected by the wic image.
> >>
> >>So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file
> >>and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the
> >>configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does
> >>not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for am69-sk
> >>should reflect support for the same. The corresponding
> >>
> >>This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and hence
> >>it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12.
> >
> >Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the
> >current default BSP.  Which right now is 6.12.
> >
> >So can you flip this patch around?  Make the default be the new
> >name and add multiple settings for the old name on the other
> >BSPs?  I think it would be more confusing to try and unravel the
> >twisty maze of settings otherwise if we don't have a standard.
> >
> 
> Yeah I can do that... I was wondering the same but thought I would
> keep the patch smaller by adding an override for only the BSP that
> requires it, instead of override for every other BSP. But yeah since
> overrides will not be required for upstream eventually, makes sense
> to do it the other way around from the get go. Will send a v2
> 
> Another question I had was about the SYSFW_* variables... These are
> ONLY being used by SPL_BINARY variable defined in k3r5.inc for the
> u-boot recipe. Should I rename those variables to UBOOT_*, since it
> is quite confusing currently.
> Eg: SYSFW_SOC = am69 but will use tifs binary with j784s4 and
> produce tiboot3-am69-*.bin

Before binman addition to U-boot, all those SYSFW_* variables were used by 
ti-sci-fw recipe to build and package SYSFW:
https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-ti/commit/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/ti-sci-fw/ti-sci-fw_git.bb?id=835811cf8586926cf78a961d090f4e6150432235

These days most of K3 devices package SYSFW into tiboot3.bin, which is R5 SPL, 
but first two K3 devices (am65 and j721e) had SYSFW as a separate FIT image.

Also, different variants of tiboot3.bin (GP vs HS, multiple SRs) were built 
using multiconfigs (sometimes a lot of multiconfigs), but these days all 
variants are built at the same time by binman. So, SPL_BINARY variable, which 
gets composed from SYSFW_* variables, now only controls what is the default 
tiboot3.bin symlink...


> Infact why not define SPL_BINARY directly in <board>-k3r5.conf
> instead of having these additional unnecessary variables to
> configure the SPL_BINARY from k3r5.inc
> 
> Maybe I'll address this in v2 as well...
> 
> >
> >>Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com>
> >>---
> >>This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for
> >>ti-u-boot-2025.01.
> >>
> >>The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when merged
> >>there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change.
> >>https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/
> >>---
> >>  meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++
> >>  meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc  | 7 ++++---
> >>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf
> >>b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf
> >>index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644
> >>--- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf
> >>+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf
> >>@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@
> >>  require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc
> >>  SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4"
> >>+SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69"
> >>  SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm"
> >>+SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk"
> >>  SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs"
> >>  UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig"
> >>diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc
> >>b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc
> >>index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644
> >>--- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc
> >>+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc
> >>@@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc
> >>  PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}"
> >>  # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS
> >>-IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin"
> >>+# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image.
> >>+BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin
> >>tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin"
> >>+BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin
> >>tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin"
> >>-# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version
> >>for SR1.0 HS-SE
> >>-IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin"
> >>+IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}"
> >>  TFA_BOARD = "j784s4"
> >