On 01.03.23 19:34, Andrew Davis wrote:
> On 3/1/23 12:29 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 01.03.23 18:26, Andrew Davis wrote:
>>> On 2/28/23 12:19 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> From: Su Baocheng <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Due to different signature keys, the PG1 and the PG2 boards can no
>>>> longer use the same FSBL (tiboot3). This makes it impossible anyway to
>>>> maintaine a single flash.bin for both variants, so we can also split
>>>> the
>>>> build.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Having two defconfigs just to make the small changes needed will be
>>> more burden than it saves. Keeping them in sync and having your
>>> integration
>>> layer do two different builds just adds more work than it is worth IMHO.
>>>
>>> We (TI) are going in that direction for our HS boards and combining the
>>> defconfigs back together now. The solution is to have the one defconfig
>>> build both images, one for HS and one for non-HS. For you looks like you
>>> are already calling the two PG boot images differently so this should
>>> work
>>> (seboot_pg1.bin and seboot_pg2.bin). Just add a new full entry in
>>> boot-image.dtsi for each (vs that #ifdef check changing the output
>>> name).
>>
>> How should that work? Will we somehow get two flash.bin out of a single
>> build then?
>>
>
> Yes if you add two enteries in your image.dtsi file. Then your integration
> selects the right named one for the board, instead of selecting the right
> defconfig for the board and doing a completely new build.
Something like this?
binman: binman {
multiple-images;
};
&binman {
flash-pg1 {
filename = "flash-pg1.bin"
...
};
flash-pg2 {
filename = "flash-pg2.bin"
...
};
};
How to avoid duplicating the common nodes of flash-pg1/pg2?
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Technology
Competence Center Embedded Linux
