On 08:34-20231106, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
> Hi Nishanth!
>
> On November 4, 2023 thus sayeth Nishanth Menon:
> > With the upcoming folder separation, there is no further need to depend
> > on am625-binman.dtsi. Duplicate the existing definitions to u-boot.dtsi
> > and r5.dts as appropriate.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Bryan Brattlof <b...@ti.com>
>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-beagleplay-u-boot.dtsi | 160 +++++++++++++++++--
> > arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-r5-beagleplay.dts | 39 +++++
> > 2 files changed, 184 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> ...
>
> > -&spl_am625_sk_dtb_unsigned {
> > - filename = SPL_AM625_BEAGLEPLAY_DTB;
> > -};
> > + ti-spl_unsigned {
> > + filename = "tispl.bin_unsigned";
>
> If all of the beagle-plays are using the GP security variant shouldn't
> we remove the _unsigned?
Today, they are GP, but there is already plans being discussed for
hs-fs variants - timelines aren't very clear though.
>
> > + pad-byte = <0xff>;
> > +
>
> ...
>
> > -&am625_sk_dtb_unsigned {
> > - filename = AM625_BEAGLEPLAY_DTB;
> > + u-boot_unsigned {
> > + filename = "u-boot.img_unsigned";
>
> And here? I don't really have an opinion either way. Just curious if
> we've thought about that.
>
> > + pad-byte = <0xff>;
> > +
>
> ~Bryan
>
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5
849D 1736 249D
