Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] arm: Backward compatibility to U-Boot v2020.04

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2358 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 08:15:14AM +0000, Dorde Stojicevic wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> yup, I completely understand and agree with you.
> 
> One way would be to detect the characteristic string Lynx has in the beginning of the FIT image " eLynxSecure" :
> 
> mkimage:
> FIT description: LynxSecure 2025.10.0-39844b80e0 SRP (aarch64)
> Created:         Thu Feb 19 11:44:07 2026
>  Image 0 (kernel-1)
>   Description:  LynxSecure 2025.10.0-39844b80e0 SRP (aarch64)
>   Created:      Thu Feb 19 11:44:07 2026
>   Type:         Kernel Image
>   Compression:  uncompressed
>   Data Size:    
>   Architecture: AArch64
>   OS:           Linux
>   Load Address: 
>   Entry Point:  
>  Image 1 (fdt-1)
>   Description:  Flattened Device Tree blob for LynxSecure 2025.10.0-39844b80e0 SRP (aarch64)
>   Created:      Thu Feb 19 11:44:07 2026
>   Type:         Flat Device Tree
>   Compression:  uncompressed
>   Data Size:    
>   Architecture: AArch64
>  Default Configuration: 'conf-1'
>  Configuration 0 (conf-1)
>   Description:  LynxSecure 2025.10.0-39844b80e0 SRP (aarch64)
>   Kernel:       kernel-1
>   FDT:          fdt-1
> 
> xxd -l 128
> 00000000: d00d feed 1dea 3bd5 0000 0030 1dea 3b64  ......;....0..;d
> 00000010: 0000 0030 0000 0011 0000 0010 0000 0000  ...0............
> 00000020: 0000 0071 1dea 3b34 0000 0000 0000 0000  ...q..;4........
> 00000030: 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 0003 0000 002e  ................
> 00000040: 0000 0065 4c79 6e78 5365 6375 7265 2032  ...eLynxSecure 2
> 00000050: 3032 352e 3130 2e30 2d33 3938 3434 6238  025.10.0-39844b8
> 00000060: 3065 3020 5352 5020 2861 6172 6368 3634  0e0 SRP (aarch64
> 00000070: 2900 0000 0000 0003 0000 0004 0000 0056  )..............V
> 
> Thing is I am currently pretty busy with other stuff, so wont be able to commit myself to it at the moment.
> Maybe you can work out a proper solution, based on info I provided.
> To my understanding, shouldn’t actually be that complex, e.g. just add check for eLynxSecure in the code location where my patch is.
> But may be I don’t see the whole picture of U-Boot and missing something.
> 
> Let me know if I can be of help somehow

I was suggesting adding a new IH_OS type because otherwise we're going
to be opening ourselves up to invalid (or malicious) images being passed
in. Thanks!

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]