Hi Garrett! On October 30, 2024 thus sayeth Garrett Giordano: > Introduce get_boot_device() to obtain the booting device. Make it also > available for non SPL builds so u-boot can also know the device it > is booting from. >
All looks good but I'm trying to understand the scenario. Are we using a bare-metal boot loader in tiboot3 then packaging U-Boot proper with TF-A and OP-TEE in next phase after DRAM is up? > Signed-off-by: Garrett Giordano <ggiord...@phytec.com> > --- > arch/arm/mach-k3/Makefile | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-k3/am62ax/Makefile | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-k3/am62ax/am62a7_init.c | 97 +---------------------- > arch/arm/mach-k3/am62ax/boot.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-k3/am62ax/boot.c > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-k3/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-k3/Makefile > index 8c4f6786a5b..ce09a30e58f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-k3/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-k3/Makefile > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ obj-y += common.o security.o > obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_K3_AM62A7) += am62ax/ > obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_K3_AM62P5) += am62px/ > obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_K3_AM625) += am62x/ > +obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_K3_AM62A7) += am62ax/ Yeah I don't know how we treat 'x' here when alphabetizing things. Do we treat it like a literal 'x' or is that just a regex alias for .+ IDK. Anywho, it looks like we created a second entry accidentally. But the substance of the patch is sound. Reviewed-by: Bryan Brattlof <b...@ti.com> ~Bryan
