Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/8] rockchip: Add binman definitions for final images

[Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>]

On 22/05/2022 03:55, Andrew Abbott wrote:
> On Thu May 19, 2022 at 9:36 PM AEST, Alper Nebi Yasak wrote:
>> Do we need the 'idbloader.img' as a build output, assuming we have a
>> working 'u-boot-rockchip.bin'? I'm asking because Simon was trying to
>> drop it in a similar patch [1].
> 
> I was keeping it for backwards compatibility, mainly because it's
> mentioned in 'rockchip.rst' and it implies that 'idbloader.img' goes
> on a separate partition to 'u-boot.itb' for targets supporting Fastboot.
> If we can drop it, then I'll gladly do so!

Honestly, I don't know. I was hoping someone else would comment as well.
I'm inclined to say we don't need it, as we would ideally be able to
extract/replace the 'idbloader.img' from/in working images with binman
commands when needed.

>> With what I said above, I think you should rename this to 'u-boot.rom'
>> and remove the definitions in {rk3288,rk3399}-u-boot.dtsi.
> 
> Makes sense to me - I just wonder if the name 'u-boot.rom' is too
> generic, since it will be an image specifically for Rockchip targets.
> Then again, perhaps the original 'u-boot-rockchip.bin' name was
> redundant, since you know what target you're building for by using a
> specific defconfig in the first place.

I think it's meant to be a step towards unifying the build artifacts and
names across the board, which I'd like if it eventually happened. We
would have different definitions of the 'u-boot.rom' image for different
whatevers, but for every board "Build and write u-boot.rom to SPI flash
if it exists" would be valid advice.