Re: [PATCH v4 15/19] board: am62px: Define capsule update firmware info

[Jon Humphreys <j-humphreys@ti.com>]

Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> writes:

> Hi Jonathan
>
> Thanks for working on this
>
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 11:41:19AM -0500, Jonathan Humphreys wrote:
>> Define the firmware components updatable via EFI capsule update, including
>> defining capsule GUIDs for the various firmware components for the AM62px
>> SK.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Humphreys <j-humphreys@ti.com>
>> ---
>>  board/ti/am62px/evm.c        | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  include/configs/am62px_evm.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/board/ti/am62px/evm.c b/board/ti/am62px/evm.c
>> index 97a95ce8cc2..6d0f66e5dc0 100644
>> --- a/board/ti/am62px/evm.c
>> +++ b/board/ti/am62px/evm.c
>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
>>   *
>>   */
>>
>> +#include <efi_loader.h>
>>  #include <asm/arch/hardware.h>
>>  #include <asm/io.h>
>>  #include <dm/uclass.h>
>> @@ -13,6 +14,37 @@
>>  #include <fdt_support.h>
>>  #include <spl.h>
>>
>> +struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = {
>
> It's better if we add an
> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI_HAVE_CAPSULE_SUPPORT)
> for both of the structs that follow (and it applies to all your patches)
>

Ilias, thanks for the reviews.

I had this protected in #if's in an earlier patch set, as you suggest here.
However, in those reviews, Roger recommended that we don't do that and put
conditions around the use of it in set_dfu_alt_info().

https://lore.kernel.org/all/b19f02e0-a80a-46d6-8296-5d516577766a@kernel.org/

I assume the reasoning is to reduce #if's in the code and rely on the
compiler to be smart enough to remove dead data. (Roger, speak up if I
misrepresent you.)

I'm ok to do either way.  What is the preferred way in U-Boot?

Thanks
Jon

>> +	{
>> +		.image_type_id = AM62PX_SK_TIBOOT3_IMAGE_GUID,
>> +		.fw_name = u"AM62PX_SK_TIBOOT3",
>> +		.image_index = 1,
>> +	},
>> +	{
>> +		.image_type_id = AM62PX_SK_SPL_IMAGE_GUID,
>> +		.fw_name = u"AM62PX_SK_SPL",
>> +		.image_index = 2,
>> +	},
>> +	{
>> +		.image_type_id = AM62PX_SK_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID,
>> +		.fw_name = u"AM62PX_SK_UBOOT",
>> +		.image_index = 3,
>> +	}
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct efi_capsule_update_info update_info = {
>> +	.dfu_string = "sf 0:0=tiboot3.bin raw 0 80000;"
>> +	"tispl.bin raw 80000 200000;u-boot.img raw 280000 400000",
>> +	.num_images = ARRAY_SIZE(fw_images),
>> +	.images = fw_images,
>> +};
>
> I haven't worked on any TI platforms lately so I cant say much about the
> naming and the flash regions. The definition seems correct
>
>
>> +
>> +void set_dfu_alt_info(char *interface, char *devstr)
>> +{
>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI_HAVE_CAPSULE_SUPPORT))
>> +		env_set("dfu_alt_info", update_info.dfu_string);
>> +}
>
> There's a CONFIG_SET_DFU_ALT_INFO symbol. This better if we add a check here
> as well
>
>> +
>>  int board_init(void)
>>  {
>>  	return 0;
>> diff --git a/include/configs/am62px_evm.h b/include/configs/am62px_evm.h
>> index 06b12860e21..57a1ba9dc3c 100644
>> --- a/include/configs/am62px_evm.h
>> +++ b/include/configs/am62px_evm.h
>> @@ -8,6 +8,30 @@
>>  #ifndef __CONFIG_AM62PX_EVM_H
>>  #define __CONFIG_AM62PX_EVM_H
>>
> [...]
>
> Regards
> /Ilias