Hi Andrew, On 09:43-20250204, Andrew Davis wrote: > On 2/3/25 10:43 PM, Manorit Chawdhry wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > > > On 14:44-20250203, Andrew Davis wrote: > > > On 1/6/25 3:34 AM, Manorit Chawdhry wrote: > > > > From: Neha Malcom Francis <n-fran...@ti.com> > > > > > > > > Clean up templatized boot binaries for j784s4 soc. This includes > > > > modifying the k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi to use SPL_BOARD_DTB, > > > > BOARD_DESCRIPTION and UBOOT_BOARD_DESCRIPTION from the files that > > > > include it to further reuse code. > > > > > > > > k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi will contain only templates. Only required boot > > > > binaries can be built from the templates in the boards' respective > > > > -u-boot.dtsi file (or k3-<board>-binman.dtsi if it exists). This allows > > > > clear distinction between the SoC common stuff vs. what is additionally > > > > needed to boot up a specific board. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Neha Malcom Francis <n-fran...@ti.com> > > > > [ Do it only for j784s4 ] > > > > Signed-off-by: Manorit Chawdhry <m-chawd...@ti.com> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm/dts/k3-am69-sk-u-boot.dtsi | 123 > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > > arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi | 116 > > > > +++++++++---------------------- > > > > arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-evm-u-boot.dtsi | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 3 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-am69-sk-u-boot.dtsi > > > > b/arch/arm/dts/k3-am69-sk-u-boot.dtsi > > > > index > > > > 4a82d2fd222669c4b390d4d877bc15329eab8894..adcd89b18ba9df9c72bf2e0fb0600b2bc7d1658c > > > > 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm/dts/k3-am69-sk-u-boot.dtsi > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/dts/k3-am69-sk-u-boot.dtsi > > > > @@ -1,10 +1,109 @@ > > > > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only > > > > /* > > > > - * Copyright (C) 2022-2023 Texas Instruments Incorporated - > > > > https://www.ti.com/ > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2022-2024 Texas Instruments Incorporated - > > > > https://www.ti.com/ > > > > */ > > > > +#define SPL_BOARD_DTB "spl/dts/ti/k3-am69-sk.dtb" > > > > +#define BOARD_DESCRIPTION "k3-am69-sk" > > > > +#define UBOOT_BOARD_DESCRIPTION "U-Boot for AM69 board" > > > > + > > > > #include "k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi" > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_CPU_V7R) > > > > + > > > > +&binman { > > > > + tiboot3-am69-hs { > > > > + insert-template = <&tiboot3_j784s4_hs>; > > > > + filename = "tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin"; > > > > > > I think there might be some confusion around the name of this file. > > > The format is tiboot3-<SYSFW name>-<SYSFW board config>.bin. > > > > > > <SYSFW name> is the name of the SYSFW binary that is packaged > > > with this file, so should be "j784s4-hs" as this uses: > > > "ti-fs-firmware-j784s4-hs-enc.bin". > > > > > > <SYSFW board config> is the name of the board configs used. > > > For both TI EVMs and SK boards there is just one common board config > > > we use call "evm". Other board vendors can use custom board configs, > > > take Toradex for example, they have a different board config which they > > > call "verdin" and they then correctly use that label for their tiboot3 > > > filename[0]. We should follow our own standard, use "evm" here. > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > [0] > > > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/blob/master/arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-verdin-wifi-dev-binman.dtsi > > > > The following is not some mistake and an intended change honestly.. we > > use am69_sk_r5_defconfig as the defconfig name and that giving j784s4 as > > the binary name is just counterintuitive, the naming should be based on > > the defconfig IMO to avoid confusions. > > > > The binary name does not need to match the marketing name of the board, > otherwise we could go name u-boot.img to append a board name too, etc. > > tiboot3.bin is different as we can have one build producing the same > SPL but with different SYSFW blobs appended. To deal with this we > append the name of the SYSFW blob to the filename. The SYSFW used here > is named "j784s4-hs", so What happens if we get a new SYSFW blob with the > name "am69-hs" but you already named this file "tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" > even though it includes "j784s4-hs" SYSFW not "am69-hs" SYSFW.. > > This filename is meant to identify the SYSFW name, not the defconfig > used. It was already correct, no need to change the standard here.
The standard has existed since we had a single tiboot3.bin packing multiple DTBs and working on AM69 and J784S4 (And similarly for other devices). At that time there was no other choice than to use the SYSFW name for identifying the binary - as what else could we use anyway? But now, the binaries aren't compatible with each other packing different DTBs, and are not the same. The following should've been done during the time when the defconfigs' were split itself but at that time templating was still being sorted out so we could'nt even make HS-FS as the default that time for AM69 ( which is the default device considering AM69 ) - we don't even make GP and even that was being built for that - doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. We should keep the "standard" just because it was historical doesn't make sense to me. U-boot is an entity and there is no relation whatsoever to keep the SYSFW name in the tiboot3 when they aren't even compatible anymore with other changes around - it should rather be based on what am building "in" U-boot. I understand if you mean to say that the following is somehow being used in multiple places and it will have a cascading effect to change it at this stage but if you are worried about cascading effect; My suggestion would be to "fix" it now instead as the platforms are getting mature and then it'd be too late to do it and I don't want seeing am69_sk_r5_defconfig building tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin 10 years down the line... PS: it's still not too late if you are thinking that given the split for AM69 happened just a year back and the other such splits have hardly been there for around 8 months so we haven't even gotten the time to streamline it. Regards, Manorit > > Andrew > > > Regards, > > Manorit
