Hi Simon,
On 12/8/22 18:32, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Xavier,
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 at 03:25, Xavier Drudis Ferran <[email protected]> wrote:
El Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 08:56:57AM +1300, Simon Glass deia:
+ @tee-SEQ {
+ fit,operation = "split-elf";
+ description = "TEE";
+ type = "tee";
+ arch = "arm64";
+ os = "tee";
+ compression = "none";
+ fit,load;
+ fit,entry;
+ fit,data;
+
+ tee-os {
+ };
+ };
I don't know, I may likely have missed something here, but are you sure you're
taking Jerome into account ?
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2022-July/490069.html__;!!OOPJP91ZZw!ltyK0RA-1Vj1dgI1cBlgG1bJOhuZ4JGxwGBIl-Nt-hFz0eZTXmQKALvE9wCKtquDSpexcMtSVjm7ay_Mn7a5e-N4yIc$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2022-November/499306.html__;!!OOPJP91ZZw!ltyK0RA-1Vj1dgI1cBlgG1bJOhuZ4JGxwGBIl-Nt-hFz0eZTXmQKALvE9wCKtquDSpexcMtSVjm7ay_Mn7a5Y8ANiXk$
No, I have not done that. The patches mentioned are additions to a
deprecated script!
I think there's a a possible misunderstanding here. I believe Jerome
pointed out that make_fit_atf.py currently supports two formats for the
tee binary and is asking if the implementation you're suggesting take
care of that.
It introduces a new binary format which binman needs to decode...that
will need to be added as a new type, I think, since it seems to use
the filename suffix to decide what format it is in.
If my aforementioned assumption is correct, that unfortunately would
make this patch series a regression, making it a blocker.
Or maybe I misunderstood something?
Cheers,
Quentin
