On 26/02/18 13:53, Dr. Philipp Tomsich wrote:
+ To identify this type of image to u-boot you should use mkimage like this:
+
+ mkimage -A arm -T tee -C none -d tee-image.bin uTee-standalone
The type should be “tee-standalone” to avoid confusion with the boot-through
variety.
Eh, I actually agree with you.
I was thinking that making the change from "tee" to "tee-standalone" and
might break things for people with their continuous-integration
jobs/scripts etc.
So I was going to send out an "RFC" patch changing "tee" to
"tee-standalone".
I'm just as happy to make the name change in this set if it's an agreed
thing with Tom and Andrew though.
+
+- "tee-bootable"
+
+ mkimage -A arm -T tee-bootable -C none -d tee.bin uTee-bootable
Bootable doesn’t really describe this: both the -standalone and this version of
the OPTEE are bootable, but the difference is that this variant also contains
the
next-stage payload. Either we keep Tom’s proposed -combo naming or we can
try to describe this as a “tee-with-payload” type.
Hmm - I thought Tom had suggested
"tee" - stays as is because that's what it's already called.
"tee-standalone" - which I've called "tee-bootable"
and then there was a potential addition "tee-combo" covering what Kever
may or may not do with his SPL implementation.
but I opted for "tee-bootable" instead of "tee-standalone"..
I think we need two decisions here:
#1 Exiting:
"tee" - stay as
"tee-standalone" - new name more obvious - adds churn into mkimage namespace
#2 Bootable OPTEE (chainload):
"tee-bootable"
"tee-chainload"
"tee-with-payload" (not so sure about this myself)
Tom, Philipp, Andrew ?
--
bod
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
