Hi Quentin,
On 2025-02-05 17:04, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> On 1/29/25 11:36 PM, Jonas Karlman wrote:
>> The v2 image format embeds boot0 and boot1 parameters, the vendor tool
>> boot_merger may write these parameters based on the rkboot miniall.ini
>> files.
>>
>> E.g. a RK3576 boot image may contain a boot1 parameter that signals
>> BootROM or vendor blobs to use 1 GHz instead of the regular 24 MHz rate
>> for the high precision timer.
>>
>> Add support for printing boot0 and boot1 parameters, e.g.:
>>
>> > tools/mkimage -l rk3576_idblock_v1.09.107.img
>> Rockchip Boot Image (v2)
>> Boot1 2: 0x100
>> Image 1: 4096 @ 0x1000
>> - Load address: 0x3ffc0000
>> Image 2: 77824 @ 0x2000
>> - Load address: 0x3ff81000
>> Image 3: 262144 @ 0x15000
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman <jo...@kwiboo.se>
>> ---
>> tools/rkcommon.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/rkcommon.c b/tools/rkcommon.c
>> index ad239917d2bd..324820717663 100644
>> --- a/tools/rkcommon.c
>> +++ b/tools/rkcommon.c
>> @@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ struct image_entry {
>> * @boot_flag: [3:0] hash type (0:none, 1:sha256, 2:sha512)
>> * @images: images
>> * @hash: hash or signature for header info
>> + *
>> + * Other fields are not used by U-Boot
>> */
>> struct header0_info_v2 {
>> uint32_t magic;
>> @@ -69,7 +71,9 @@ struct header0_info_v2 {
>> uint16_t size;
>> uint16_t num_images;
>> uint32_t boot_flag;
>> - uint8_t reserved1[104];
>> + uint8_t reserved1[32];
>> + uint32_t boot0_param[10];
>> + uint32_t boot1_param[8];
>> struct image_entry images[4];
>> uint8_t reserved2[1064];
>> uint8_t hash[512];
>> @@ -491,6 +495,18 @@ static void rkcommon_print_header_v2(const struct
>> header0_info_v2 *hdr)
>>
>> printf("Rockchip Boot Image (v2)\n");
>>
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(hdr->boot0_param); i++) {
>> + val = le32_to_cpu(hdr->boot0_param[i]);
>> + if (val)
>> + printf("Boot0 %d: 0x%x\n", i, val);
>> + }
>> +
>
> This seems to indicate that there are 10 4B params for boot0, is that
> correct? If that's the case I would at least add "param" before %d, the
> output looked odd to me at first glance.
That should be correct and is what boot_merger can embed based on the
[BOOT0_PARAM] section and WORD_n (n=0-9) values from MINIALL.ini.
The only reason I skipped "param" was because I thought it looked
prettier to align the "BootX %d" and "Image %d" in the output, can
change to include "param" :-)
>
> If they aren't guaranteed to be individual 4B params, what about just
> printing the whole boot0_param in hex format?
There is only very few WORD_ values in use in linux-6.1-stan-rkr5 rkbin
MINIALL.ini files. So I opted to only print out the params that have a
value different from the default 0x0.
>
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(hdr->boot1_param); i++) {
>> + val = le32_to_cpu(hdr->boot1_param[i]);
>> + if (val)
>> + printf("Boot1 %d: 0x%x\n", i, val);
>> + }
>> +
>
> Same remark as for boot0 params instead with 8 4B params for boot1.
Correct, boot_merger embed WORD_n (n=0-7) from the [BOOT1_PARAM] section
and also only very few are in use.
My main test to validate this was to add different values to WORD_n
under BOOT0/BOOT1_PARAM and then compare with the generated idblock.img.
Regards,
Jonas
>
> Cheers,
> Quentin
