On 11/25/25 12:37 PM, Quentin Schulz wrote:
Hello Quentin,
+++ b/doc/mkimage.1
@@ -251,6 +251,18 @@ Append TFA BL31 file to the image.
.B \-\-tfa-bl31-addr
Set TFA BL31 file load and entry point address.
.
+.TP
+.B \-z
+.TQ
+.B \-\-tee-file
+Append TEE file to the image.
Please specify which format is supported here if only select ones are.
+.
+.TP
+.B \-Z
+.TQ
+.B \-\-tee-addr
+Set TEE file load and entry point address, in hexadecimal.
s/address/addresses/ ?
This is a single address here, so no plural.
[...]
@@ -239,3 +251,42 @@ def test_fit_auto_signed(ubman):
generate_and_check_fit_image(' -fauto-conf' + b_args + s_args +
" " + fit_file,
scfgs=True, bl31present=True,
key_name=key_name,
sign_algo=sign_algo)
+
+ # Run the same tests as 1/2/3 above, but this time with TEE
+ # options -z tee.bin -Z 0x56780000 to cover both mkimage with
+ # and without TEE use cases.
+ b_args = " -d" + kernel_file + " -b" + dt1_file + " -b" +
dt2_file + " -z" + tee_file + " -Z 0x56780000"
+
General remark but using f-string may improve readability:
b_args = f'-d {kernel_file} -b {dt1_file} -b {dt2_file} -z {tee_file} -Z
0x56780000'
[...]
@@ -473,10 +504,20 @@ static void fit_write_configs(struct
image_tool_params *params, char *fdt)
len = strlen(str);
fdt_property_string(fdt, typename, str);
- if (params->fit_tfa_bl31) {
+ if (params->fit_tfa_bl31 && params->fit_tee) {
+ snprintf(str, sizeof(str), "%s-1." FIT_TFA_BL31_PROP
"-1." FIT_TEE_PROP "-1", typename);
+ str[len] = 0;
+ len += strlen(FIT_TFA_BL31_PROP "-1") + 1;
+ str[len] = 0;
+ len += strlen(FIT_TEE_PROP "-1") + 1;
+ } else if (params->fit_tfa_bl31) {
snprintf(str, sizeof(str), "%s-1." FIT_TFA_BL31_PROP
"-1", typename);
str[len] = 0;
len += strlen(FIT_TFA_BL31_PROP "-1") + 1;
+ } else if (params->fit_tee) {
+ snprintf(str, sizeof(str), "%s-1." FIT_TEE_PROP "-1",
typename);
+ str[len] = 0;
+ len += strlen(FIT_TEE_PROP "-1") + 1;
It actually took me a while to figure out that we are reusing len from
outside of the if block because the loadables property starts with
kernel-1.
I'm wondering if it would make it more readable to do the following
if (params->fit_tfa_bl31) {
snprintf(&str[len + 1], sizeof(str) - (len + 1), FIT_TFA_BL31_PROP
"-1");
len += strlen(&str[len + 1]) + 1;
}
if (params->fit_tee) {
snprintf(&str[len + 1], sizeof(str) - (len + 1), FIT_TEE_PROP "-1");
len += strlen(&str[len + 1]) + 1;
}
(NOT TESTED!)
Works. and this is much better than the current code, thanks !
