Re: Unify the 64MiB flash layout

[Patrick Williams <patrick@stwcx.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:13:44PM +0800, Lei Yu wrote:
 
> With the above changes, g220a system works fine with the new u-boot
> and the updated flash layout.

Does it work for the flash0 u-boot to be able to boot flash1's system?
Maybe this doesn't affect g220a but in general we've found issues with
changing these kind of layouts and not updating both flash banks.  Due
to our secureboot implementation, we're not able to update the primary
flash bank (since it is write-protected).

This change doesn't currently affect us right now, but if we're making
a breaking change anyhow should we increase the u-boot partition
sufficiently that it won't become an issue later on as ast2600 systems
go into production?  We've found that over time the size tends to get
bigger with newer (more optimizing?) compilers, so I think we should
ensure there is some buffer there.

-- 
Patrick Williams

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]