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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE98C4708A for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD214613C3 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:34:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DD214613C3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=stwcx.xyz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FrS1C2Q4Pz304T for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 22:34:07 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=stwcx.xyz header.i=@stwcx.xyz header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=h9RbRz56; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=JefJ70Nf; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=stwcx.xyz (client-ip=66.111.4.25; helo=out1-smtp.messagingengine.com; envelope-from=patrick@stwcx.xyz; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=stwcx.xyz header.i=@stwcx.xyz header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=h9RbRz56; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm2 header.b=JefJ70Nf; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FrS0c55hfz2yXv for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 22:33:35 +1000 (AEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572115C00C9; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stwcx.xyz; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm2; bh=e3F5up9F0HWhwDgeYcxCNvf8GlP ArHo4d76tapl+W3o=; b=h9RbRz56Z84NStq9K6BwYxp1oA5iytVpk0Mb5MXCcN1 EG0H54E992I7hIZGuNiYGCapMmW0NceT7PtcKMg1b3ZuFDT4pH5Jx7Z0WiCb4hWj Jubf+PZjdYNHw84WiVxxmgULCfuOBPlrHeXIS1gZHEgEvEzRcbhTc/jMQgEMoaLt 9Kxa69sw/Ib337IdWJB73LrMv27k5NLg2buRvJaNNVrV71ruipkwccQ49v6Kpx0P WiStX0C868Y75Iio/Tt89g4+p5ph8yNcYxhRCSjxH4WvamVTZzoIFOsqJG3RJLw5 pFjO/h6CscJNAPaREhldF/coJYlf/KDE19AcztUxQAg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=e3F5up 9F0HWhwDgeYcxCNvf8GlPArHo4d76tapl+W3o=; b=JefJ70Nfy5sFErFgldsSCB J2LanA5HjA/yVVBLN5hVtc8fqRjaRYr6kZZe5hvgeTQfYqqV8DzvqPWTq12yXIKM mILAJs4CmUGr/0vccX74v/m2crEQEpdh31WOQ1kvYien3vZHUALEOKDx3LoPmHVb nUCx9+gL4dZ/972lEz2o8mHuQyZTo0O8qQAgQ+Bj/E7ZelpiTPOwSgCNu7lQgKBA I0b4TSLCEop32QIKO77E93KV3QTzF4nKfS7MiZX4F2OL+3GQuzTjEEFcT7xIst8U ynh/Tn8+86SiRIaxrqH7YoPcz7iDCvbsR5u7Hqa95DOeM5SIZHxEPYrYGwJ0xn1g == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdekhedgheegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucgfrhhlucfvnfffucdljedtmdenucfjughrpeffhf fvuffkfhggtggujgesghdtreertddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgtkhcuhghilhhl ihgrmhhsuceophgrthhrihgtkhesshhtfigtgidrgiihiieqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnh epgeehheefffegkeevhedthffgudfhgeefgfdthefhkedtleffveekgfeuffehtdeinecu kfhppeejiedrvdehtddrkeegrddvfeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphgrthhrihgtkhesshhtfigtgidrgiihii X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (76-250-84-236.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [76.250.84.236]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 27 May 2021 08:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 07:33:28 -0500 From: Patrick Williams To: Lei Yu Subject: Re: Unify the 64MiB flash layout Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="N/cei+nrvetBN/3u" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: openbmc Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" --N/cei+nrvetBN/3u Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:13:44PM +0800, Lei Yu wrote: =20 > 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. --=20 Patrick Williams --N/cei+nrvetBN/3u Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEBGD9ii4LE9cNbqJBqwNHzC0AwRkFAmCvkZYACgkQqwNHzC0A wRkTVw//avGUBG0+jwXSqlWuBrf9GxJUC8n/w+lkPNeot7gNQfUXOTgEJfnu4sDe z3LWhq84V+wMa9KXQkk63YFkAMJ4hB7Rko5Wv3mfxKTv+ojl/DtXzq9eBFS6Np5i KsdcSNWnk3+BUa8mWYTmQwiyVXBGYcFfN2m/F7KkC9+ohE0XT/xyskCF11p/0Fwh MgVAx7WqlRE6VtYbqvrwjXsqWpal4MIiRfY8P4RF3RIaEJAdIjNAqgUgWzXfGbuG YlnTiWUlGc6KdIBtlhj0YCIFjRdiB00SMAu4vlHQiCpv7iauAXuTShns0AdSBBVS 3KQPOqyyvhMjQVcu56tnx7jimJfXy6Zqbf3CkuxPg5z5lwn75/NaOQ9tHpRHgbAR /71+jg+6tRmzdH9QfIcRNMxWb1uXf0bKcXlqwQIAICyu3uvga07KP2P2wpeMvqeB hU0tJOheKtU4PEyEqJP5wQR8ftdGDxw2qLYmeH/p6QOtPtVs6Mqu/BLd1baLZ3so Jvc4/EM4rMiS3q92N+OhdpqdWcFapgsHn0LX6ISP9I6PFR/w4y17XVO7yuiZF30w FgG1Pjd5xvZVXxnWteSKHuRLfIGqhZW0N2mQVfnp8DFpayk/zZ68NoLy4pMDRdOs O2fZ1SJ9SbSaz376F2StJ62x6clAwrOEme/VctUi0Nf3n4R38iY= =Oe5O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --N/cei+nrvetBN/3u--