On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:45:55PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Tom Rini, > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:44:03PM +0200, Stefano Babic wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On 19/08/2013 18:19, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 04:39:27PM +0200, Stefano Babic wrote: > > > >> (header for Freescale's i.MX processors) to allow the usage of > > > >> Freescale's tools to sign the u-boot image and provide a secure > > > >> boot. > > > >> > > > >> This has nothing to do with the Secure Boot extensions > > > >> implemented by Simon Glass, that can be in any case used to boot > > > >> later a secure image. Freescale's secure boot ensures that a > > > >> signed bootloader is started only if it is verified with a key > > > >> that is burned into the iMX fuses. Documentation about the > > > >> Freescale's secure process can be read from the AN4591, available > > > >> on the Freescale's Website. > > > > > > > > Where does Marek's patch fall in here exactly? > > > > > > Marek's patch is intended to add support for mxs based processor (mx23 > > > / mx28) and it is quite parallel to mine and I think Marek will > > > replace Freescale's own tool elftosb. > > > > But, for clarity, there's not a whole bunch of common code that could be > > used here, and these i.MXes are different from those i.MXes? > > MX23/28 and the rest of IMX use the same "HAB" thing, but due to > differences in their bootrom (MXS is sigmatel design, IMX is > freescale), it's done differently on both MXS and IMX. Thus we need > two implementations :-( IIRC there is HABv3 on IMX and HABv4 on MXS, > no ?
OK, thanks. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
