From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902E6C02192 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:03:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fllvem-ot04.ext.ti.com (fllvem-ot04.ext.ti.com [198.47.19.246]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.91514.1738598585996000281 for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:03:06 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="dkim: body hash did not verify" header.i=@ti.com header.s=ti-com-17Q1 header.b=bWzmYwbl; spf=pass (domain: ti.com, ip: 198.47.19.246, mailfrom: a-limaye@ti.com) Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by fllvem-ot04.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 513G35W92164588 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 10:03:05 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1738598585; bh=/5k4xpRYQB5oFbwN6g9R7Ns8EbB2+cTsLnbCcGsZRiY=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=bWzmYwbladitP5Up1076Rzsc5NGcSupeyRJSiNiOn7JwYmmNiUjYLbyYllgn2ru+7 POKL9UcDMgMl5B0r7fvyuwrV9JTGoOJNcuM2/qtYmW5xosrDOyrqe7LIWkTasyoK4T JpmWPSTvRKTnvQSwn/jR00cjU0HeY2Hl8u4qRDDg= Received: from DLEE107.ent.ti.com (dlee107.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.37]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 513G35rw086433 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 10:03:05 -0600 Received: from DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) by DLEE107.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 10:03:04 -0600 Received: from lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.250) by DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 10:03:04 -0600 Received: from [172.24.227.91] (psdkl-workstation0.dhcp.ti.com [172.24.227.91]) by lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 513G32MR031770; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 10:03:03 -0600 Message-ID: <76bb4b34-e0e6-46d7-a2ae-e25c9e9f6f73@ti.com> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 21:33:02 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [meta-ti][scarthgap][PATCH] conf: machine: am69: Update filenames for initial bootloader tiboot3 To: Ryan Eatmon , CC: , , , References: <20250203132307.2862016-1-a-limaye@ti.com> <3e299711-bbf8-4176-a101-0baec7df9772@ti.com> <1820BCABCD14D62F.1760@lists.yoctoproject.org> <6fa499cb-2207-477d-9483-f2129b752e65@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Aniket Limaye In-Reply-To: <6fa499cb-2207-477d-9483-f2129b752e65@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed X-C2ProcessedOrg: 333ef613-75bf-4e12-a4b1-8e3623f5dcea Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by fllvem-ot04.ext.ti.com id 513G35W92164588 List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from li982-79.members.linode.com [45.33.32.79] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 16:03:10 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18247 On 03/02/25 21:10, Ryan Eatmon wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 2/3/2025 9:35 AM, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >> >> >> On 2/3/2025 9:25 AM, Aniket Limaye 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=20 >>>>> recipe >>>>> and also the files expected by the wic image. >>>>> >>>>> So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include f= ile >>>>> and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the >>>>> configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary d= oes >>>>> not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for=20 >>>>> am69-sk >>>>> should reflect support for the same. The corresponding >>>>> >>>>> This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and=20 >>>>> hence >>>>> it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. >>>> >>>> Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the=20 >>>> current default BSP.=C2=A0 Which right now is 6.12. >>>> >>>> So can you flip this patch around?=C2=A0 Make the default be the new= name=20 >>>> and add multiple settings for the old name on the other BSPs?=C2=A0 = I=20 >>>> think it would be more confusing to try and unravel the twisty maze=20 >>>> of settings otherwise if we don't have a standard. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah I can do that... I was wondering the same but thought I would=20 >>> keep the patch smaller by adding an override for only the BSP that=20 >>> requires it, instead of override for every other BSP. But yeah since=20 >>> overrides will not be required for upstream eventually, makes sense=20 >>> 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=20 >>> ONLY being used by SPL_BINARY variable defined in k3r5.inc for the=20 >>> u-boot recipe. Should I rename those variables to UBOOT_*, since it=20 >>> is quite confusing currently. >>> Eg: SYSFW_SOC =3D am69 but will use tifs binary with j784s4 and produ= ce=20 >>> tiboot3-am69-*.bin >>> >>> Infact why not define SPL_BINARY directly in -k3r5.conf=20 >>> instead of having these additional unnecessary variables to configure= =20 >>> the SPL_BINARY from k3r5.inc >> >> Generally speaking, I'm not opposed to cleaning up variable names to=20 >> be more clear, but since this would be a change that would impact all=20 >> platforms, I would prefer this patch leave the SYSFW stuff and then=20 >> submit a second patch that cleans up all of the platforms at once. >> >> The only issue I can see with naming them UBOOT_* is that it might be=20 >> confusing that these variable are used in the uboot recipe itself.=20 >> Maybe TI_UBOOT_* would better to show that they are TI specific=20 >> variables. >=20 > I also meant to say... >=20 > Using the multiple variables makes it really easy to build a consistent= =20 > naming system for SPL_BINARY.=C2=A0 By setting it directly in each mach= ine=20 > config you run the risk of the naming drifting across platforms. Fair enough... And yes was going to keep it a separate patch for the cleanup. Thanks, Aniket >=20 >> >>> Maybe I'll address this in v2 as well... >>> >>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye >>>>> --- >>>>> 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=20 >>>>> merged >>>>> there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d= 6129ce333@ti.com/ >>>>> --- >>>>> =C2=A0 meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ >>>>> =C2=A0 meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc=C2=A0 | 7 ++++--- >>>>> =C2=A0 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf=20 >>>>> 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 @@ >>>>> =C2=A0 require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc >>>>> =C2=A0 SYSFW_SOC =3D "j784s4" >>>>> +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 =3D "am69" >>>>> =C2=A0 SYSFW_CONFIG =3D "evm" >>>>> +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 =3D "sk" >>>>> =C2=A0 SYSFW_SUFFIX =3D "hs-fs" >>>>> =C2=A0 UBOOT_MACHINE =3D "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" >>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc=20 >>>>> 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 >>>>> =C2=A0 PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?=3D=20 >>>>> "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" >>>>> =C2=A0 # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS >>>>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES +=3D "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" >>>>> +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. >>>>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES =3D "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin=20 >>>>> tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>>>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 =3D "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin=20 >>>>> tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" >>>>> -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version=20 >>>>> for SR1.0 HS-SE >>>>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES +=3D "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>>>> +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES +=3D "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" >>>>> =C2=A0 TFA_BOARD =3D "j784s4" >>>> >> >> >> >> -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- >> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. >> View/Reply Online (#18245):=20 >> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18245 >> Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110970137/6551054 >> Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub=20 >> [reatmon@ti.com] >> -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- >> >=20