On 01/19/2017 11:59 AM, Lokesh Vutla wrote: > > > On Thursday 19 January 2017 09:29 PM, Andrew F. Davis wrote: >> On 01/17/2017 10:14 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote: >>> >>> [..snip..] >>> >>>>>>>> +CONFIG_OF_LIST="am335x-evm am335x-bone am335x-boneblack am335x-evmsk >>>>>>>> am335x-bonegreen am335x-icev2" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just wondering, do we have HS variants of all these boards? If not we >>>>>>> can just keep am335x-evm. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We don't "technically" have HS vs non-HS versions of any board, the >>>>>> boards are the same, the non-HS ones simply have the security features >>>>>> locked out. If the silicon they put on any of these boards is not locked >>>>>> out then it becomes an HS board. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But, yes, I only know of unlocked AM335x's currently being placed on the >>>>>> standard EVMs for now. >>>>>> >>>>> okay. Then drop all the other dtbs from the list. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what that would get us, the differences between non-HS and >>>> HS have nothing to do with the devices on the boards. This will only >>>> create a support burden if someone gets an unlocked Beaglebone for >>>> instance. Why limit the *more* feature-full chip? HS chips needs to be >>>> thought of as they are, a superset of the non-HS chips, not as a >>>> different kind of chip. >>> >>> Is this officially supported? Have you tested before posting? >>> If no then there should not be any argument for adding this support >>> assuming this can possibly be useful or experimental. >>> >> >> I have tested this on the -EVM and will not test this on other boards. >> The type of board used is unrelated to adding boot authentication. This >> is not a new chip or board, it is a configuration change defconfig only. >> (If we could include other defconfigs like we can DTB files then this >> defconfig would include the regular defconfig and add a few lines. This >> would be useful for merging all the am335x/am43xx defconfig variations >> that have started to get rather out of sync with each other). >> >> Think if I added an I2C driver, there would be no need to test it on >> every board U-Boot supports, just one, and if it didn't work on some >> board that would be a bug against the board, not against the driver. > > The point here is what is being officially supported. Even the $subject > says only *AM335x High security evm* but the patch adds support for all > boards with HS silicon. Also look at the size of the image that is > getting bloated when you know you are using only 1 evm. > > I understand that it is good to have but I am saying that it can be > added easily when someone *really* needs it. >
Okay, I will deferred to your judgment on this for now, I'll remove them for v2. Thanks, Andrew > Thanks and regards, > Lokesh > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
