U-Boot is seeing increasing adoption on pocket computers, many of which (sadly) have fused bootloader chains. Many of these bootloaders have a very rigid definition of what a "valid" downstream payload looks like. Sometimes it's just a boring old v0/v2 Android boot image. Sometimes it's something decidedly more grotesque.
To date, this last-mile packaging step has been trapped in downstream CI pipelines, blogposts, documentation, etc. This patch series aims to gather up all that esoterica and institutional knowledge and codify it in U-Boot's build system, using binman. Put differently: an overwhelming majority of these pocket computer devices have a "canonical" payload format that U-Boot currently has no support for. Let's fix that. The first patches in this series introduce an `android_boot` etype. To begin with, this is a "typical" abootimg, as defined by canonical AOSP sources and reference `fastboot`/`mkbootimg` implementation. There's plenty of devices out there with a sane(-ish, nothing in Android-land is ever truly sane) bootloader that will happily chain a U-Boot rolled into the kernel section of an abootimg. With that out of the way, the cursed bootloaders are next to be supported. Binman etypes for Qualcomm's "QCDT" and Samsung's "DTBH" formats are implemented. These are non-standard vendor-specific devicetree containers, which the previous bootloader uses to pick a FDT to boot the downstream with. In both cases, these vendor-specific formats are tacked on to the end of a v0 abootimg, with the header_version being hijacked to encode the length of this following payload. Thus, the android_boot etype is retrofitted to allow these shenanigans. Binman configs that produce flashable boot artifacts are introduced for the following devices: * google-sargo (vanilla v2) * oneplus-fajita (vanilla v2) * samsung-a5u-eur (QCDT v0) * samsung-gt510 (QCDT v0) * samsung-j7xelte (DTBH v0) I also successfully tested a vanilla v0 on my samsung-expressltexx, in conjunction with the qcom-armv7 series already on the list. However, since that work is still in-flight and the expressltexx DTS is downstream, I opted not to include it here. Signed-off-by: Sam Day <[email protected]> --- Sam Day (13): binman: Android boot image support .gitignore: ignore binman-generated blobs arch: arm: qcom: google-sargo binman config qcom: arch: arm: qcom: sdm845-fajita binman configs mach-snapdragon: enable BINMAN binman: android_boot: vendor-dt support binman: Add QCDT support binman: android_boot: SEANDROIDENFORCE support arch: arm: qcom: samsung-a5u-eur binman config arch: arm: qcom: samsung-gt510 binman config binman: Add DTBH support arch: arm: exynos: add j7xelte binman config configs: exynos-mobile: pull in BINMAN .gitignore | 1 + arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 + arch/arm/dts/exynos-mobile.dtsi | 5 + arch/arm/dts/exynos7870-j7xelte-u-boot.dtsi | 24 ++ arch/arm/dts/msm8916-samsung-a5u-eur-u-boot.dtsi | 39 ++ arch/arm/dts/msm8916-samsung-gt510-u-boot.dtsi | 39 ++ arch/arm/dts/qcom.dtsi | 5 + arch/arm/dts/sdm670-google-sargo-u-boot.dtsi | 27 ++ arch/arm/dts/sdm845-oneplus-fajita-u-boot.dtsi | 25 ++ arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 1 + configs/exynos-mobile_defconfig | 1 + configs/qcom_defconfig | 1 + tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py | 408 +++++++++++++++++++++ tools/binman/etype/dtbh.py | 173 +++++++++ tools/binman/etype/qcdt.py | 160 ++++++++ tools/binman/ftest.py | 127 +++++++ .../test/vendor/android_boot_seandroidenforce.dts | 22 ++ tools/binman/test/vendor/android_boot_v0.dts | 29 ++ tools/binman/test/vendor/android_boot_v2.dts | 46 +++ .../binman/test/vendor/android_boot_vendor_dt.dts | 27 ++ tools/binman/test/vendor/dtbh.dts | 29 ++ tools/binman/test/vendor/dtbh_bad_model_info.dts | 19 + tools/binman/test/vendor/qcdt.dts | 20 + tools/binman/test/vendor/qcdt_bad_msm_id.dts | 17 + 24 files changed, 1246 insertions(+) --- base-commit: a4c8728f225b0d7d591fb9199ce7efb72f48290e change-id: 20260604-android-binman-ad7a43f4e99d Best regards, -- Sam Day <[email protected]>
