On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 08:55:49PM +0530, Aniket Limaye via lists.yoctoproject.org 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
Before binman addition to U-boot, all those SYSFW_* variables were used by ti-sci-fw recipe to build and package SYSFW: https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-ti/commit/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/ti-sci-fw/ti-sci-fw_git.bb?id=835811cf8586926cf78a961d090f4e6150432235 These days most of K3 devices package SYSFW into tiboot3.bin, which is R5 SPL, but first two K3 devices (am65 and j721e) had SYSFW as a separate FIT image. Also, different variants of tiboot3.bin (GP vs HS, multiple SRs) were built using multiconfigs (sometimes a lot of multiconfigs), but these days all variants are built at the same time by binman. So, SPL_BINARY variable, which gets composed from SYSFW_* variables, now only controls what is the default tiboot3.bin symlink... > 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 > > 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 (#18250): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18250 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
