Hey Bryan!
On 10/30/24 14:54, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
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?
We plan on using get_boot_device() to figure out where to store the
environment and for proceeding with the boot flow.
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
Your right, I added the second entry accidentally. I will send a v2 with
it dropped and pick up your Reviewed-by: tag.
Thank you!
~Garrett
