On 03/02/25 21:10, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
On 2/3/2025 9:35 AM, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On 2/3/2025 9:25 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote:
On 03/02/25 20:16, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
On 2/3/2025 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote:
Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot
recipe
and also the files expected by the wic image.
So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file
and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the
configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does
not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for
am69-sk
should reflect support for the same. The corresponding
This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and
hence
it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12.
Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the
current default BSP. Which right now is 6.12.
So can you flip this patch around? Make the default be the new name
and add multiple settings for the old name on the other BSPs? I
think it would be more confusing to try and unravel the twisty maze
of settings otherwise if we don't have a standard.
Yeah I can do that... I was wondering the same but thought I would
keep the patch smaller by adding an override for only the BSP that
requires it, instead of override for every other BSP. But yeah since
overrides will not be required for upstream eventually, makes sense
to do it the other way around from the get go. Will send a v2
Another question I had was about the SYSFW_* variables... These are
ONLY being used by SPL_BINARY variable defined in k3r5.inc for the
u-boot recipe. Should I rename those variables to UBOOT_*, since it
is quite confusing currently.
Eg: SYSFW_SOC = am69 but will use tifs binary with j784s4 and produce
tiboot3-am69-*.bin
Infact why not define SPL_BINARY directly in <board>-k3r5.conf
instead of having these additional unnecessary variables to configure
the SPL_BINARY from k3r5.inc
Generally speaking, I'm not opposed to cleaning up variable names to
be more clear, but since this would be a change that would impact all
platforms, I would prefer this patch leave the SYSFW stuff and then
submit a second patch that cleans up all of the platforms at once.
The only issue I can see with naming them UBOOT_* is that it might be
confusing that these variable are used in the uboot recipe itself.
Maybe TI_UBOOT_* would better to show that they are TI specific
variables.
I also meant to say...
Using the multiple variables makes it really easy to build a consistent
naming system for SPL_BINARY. By setting it directly in each machine
config you run the risk of the naming drifting across platforms.
Fair enough...
And yes was going to keep it a separate patch for the cleanup.
Thanks,
Aniket
Maybe I'll address this in v2 as well...
Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <[email protected]>
---
This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for
ti-u-boot-2025.01.
The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when
merged
there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change.
https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]/
---
meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++
meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++---
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf
b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf
index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644
--- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf
+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf
@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@
require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc
SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4"
+SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69"
SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm"
+SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk"
SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs"
UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig"
diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc
b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc
index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644
--- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc
+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc
@@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc
PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?=
"${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}"
# Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS
-IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin"
+# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image.
+BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin
tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin"
+BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin
tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin"
-# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version
for SR1.0 HS-SE
-IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin"
+IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}"
TFA_BOARD = "j784s4"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#18247):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18247
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110970137/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
