On 20/01/24 00:47, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 23:20-20240119, Apurva Nandan wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi
b/arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..d0d49b5bbe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi
@@ -0,0 +1,345 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2023 Texas Instruments Incorporated -https://www.ti.com/
+ */
+
+#include "k3-binman.dtsi"
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_TARGET_J784S4_R5_EVM
+
+&rcfg_yaml_tifs {
+ config = "tifs-rm-cfg.yaml";
+};
+
+&binman {
+ tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin {
+ filename = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin";
+
https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20240103174756.xa4rzbn4klk5gv2x@aware/
You haven't responded on thread why
"Prefer #1 - j784s4 binman template" is not feasible or not desirable.
Something like:
in j784s4-binman.dtsi:
&binman {
j784s4_tiboot3_hs_fs_template: template-9 {
and then in sk.dtsi:
sk.dtsi means sk-uboot.dtsi or sk-binman.dtsi?
&binman {
ti-j784s4-hs-evm.bin {
insert-template =<&j784s4_tiboot3_hs_fs_template>;
};
};
This allows boards to readily include the template for the binaries of
choice and generate just relevant output. Wont it save much confusion?
[...]
It is still little unclear what is the full thing that you are
recommending to implement here.
From what I understood, is it as follows?
- Three binman files will be there: j784s4-binman.dtsi (soc binman),
j784s4-evm-binman.dtsi and am69-sk-binman.dtsi (board binman)
- j784s4-binman.dtsi will be a SoC binman, and will have only templates
for all tiboot3 gp, hs, hsfs, and tispl/uboot
- The board binman files will include these templates and update the dtb
files in them.
- Final board.dts will use the correct board-binman.dtsi files
Please correct wherever wrong.
--
Regards,
Apurva Nandan,
Texas Instruments.
