Hi Jonas,
On 4/9/25 1:56 PM, Jonas Karlman wrote:
Hi Quentin,
On 2025-04-09 11:28, Quentin Schulz wrote:
Hi Jonas, Simon,
On 3/29/25 4:06 PM, Jonas Karlman wrote:
From: Simon Glass <[email protected]>
Declare arch and compression at the top of the file to avoid needing
ifdefs in every usage.
Add a few comments to help with the remaining #ifdefs.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jonas Karlman <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v4:
- Split from "VBE serial part H: Implement VBE on Rockchip RK3399"
---
arch/arm/dts/rockchip-u-boot.dtsi | 44 +++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/rockchip-u-boot.dtsi
b/arch/arm/dts/rockchip-u-boot.dtsi
index e9ed1d4b5738..2b01dc660562 100644
--- a/arch/arm/dts/rockchip-u-boot.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/dts/rockchip-u-boot.dtsi
@@ -5,6 +5,20 @@
#include <config.h>
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
+#define ARCH "arm64"
+#else
+#define ARCH "arm"
+#endif
+
I would refrain from using ARCH here as it's something we already use to
specify the architecture to build (e.g. make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=...).
Actually you don't need (or even shouldn't?) provide ARCH to the make
command, got confused because I'm compiling the kernel right now :)
Maybe FIT_ARCH?
sunxi-u-boot.dtsi is also using ARCH so I figured it was also safe here,
we can change to FIT_ARCH for a v5.
Indeed. I would prefer something not clashing with other
environment/make variables :)
[...]
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
fit,operation = "split-elf";
description = "ARM Trusted Firmware";
type = "firmware";
- arch = "arm64";
+ arch = ARCH;
os = "arm-trusted-firmware";
compression = "none";
fit,load;
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@
fit,operation = "split-elf";
description = "TEE";
type = "tee";
- arch = "arm64";
+ arch = ARCH;
os = "tee";
compression = "none";
fit,load;
@@ -119,11 +119,11 @@
};
#endif
};
-#else
+#else /* !CONFIG_ARM64 */
op-tee {
description = "OP-TEE";
type = "tee";
- arch = "arm";
+ arch = ARCH;
os = "tee";
compression = "none";
load = <(CFG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE +
0x8400000)>;
Wondering if we couldn't put some of the Aarch32 and Aarch64 OP-TEE OS
node(s) in common?
Sounds like a good idea to maybe put op-tee in a template, personally I
never use op-tee so typically try to minimize any change/impact related
to op-tee.
The RK3506 does use op-tee so I may need to dig more into the op-tee
parts in a future RK3506 enablement series, initially [1] was enough.
Could look more into using a op-tee template in such future series.
[1]
https://source.denx.de/u-boot/contributors/kwiboo/u-boot/-/commit/3d683f3b717de010fffeece8712373892a599905
Interesting, is it required for RK3506? Do they do things in secure
world and since it's Aarch32, no TF-A loaded by U-Boot?
You can play with OP-TEE on RK3588 from master, c.f.
https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/blob/master/core/arch/arm/plat-rockchip/platform_rk3588.c
I haven't even built it but there's been some work on it since it was
merged early December last year, so possibly people are using it.
Cheers,
Quentin
