On 6/5/26 15:57, Erich E. Hoover wrote:
The ZynqMP Boot Image Format allows specifying the register
initialization file with the "[init]" attribute. Since this
feature is already supported by the "zynqmpimage" backend, this
commit leverages that existing capability to add support for the
"[init]" attribute in the zynqmpbif backend:
https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1283-bootgen-user-guide/init
We are using this feature, in combination with other zynqmpbif
imperative mood.
options, like so:
===
image : {
[init] fsbl.int
please use different name then fsbl because fsbl is not doing this programming.
That's done by bootrom itself.
Topic board is defining it like this.
board/topic/zynq/zynq-topic-miamiplus/ps7_regs.txt
but that's for zynq
Actually I think would be good to recap format because origin format
is different compare to what it is used by bootgen right now.
https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1283-bootgen-user-guide/Initialization-Pairs-and-INT-File-Attribute
[bootloader] fsbl.elf
[pmufw_image] pmufw.elf
[destination_cpu=none] fsbl.tcl
[destination_cpu=a53-0, exception_level=el-3] bl31.elf
[destination_cpu=a53-0, exception_level=el-2, load=0x08000000,
startup=0x08000000] u-boot.bin
}
===
Signed-off-by: Erich E. Hoover <[email protected]>
---
tools/zynqmpbif.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
tools/zynqmpimage.c | 4 ++--
tools/zynqmpimage.h | 2 ++
3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/zynqmpbif.c b/tools/zynqmpbif.c
index 82ce0ac1a52..546b9e4fd9d 100644
--- a/tools/zynqmpbif.c
+++ b/tools/zynqmpbif.c
@@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ static char *parse_partition_owner(char *line, struct
bif_entry *bf)
}
static const struct bif_flags bif_flags[] = {
+ { "init", BIF_FLAG_INIT },
{ "fsbl_config", BIF_FLAG_FSBL_CONFIG },
{ "trustzone", BIF_FLAG_TZ },
{ "pmufw_image", BIF_FLAG_PMUFW_IMAGE },
@@ -279,7 +280,7 @@ static int bif_add_blob(const void *data, size_t len,
size_t *offset)
return 0;
}
-static int bif_init(void)
+static int bif_initialize(void)
What's the reason for this rename? I don't think you should rename it because it
is just distracting.
Anyway I have tested this patch and output looks reasonable. I would obviously
prefer to add more features there (like ignoring comments) or unify the format
but that's out of the purpose of this patch.
Thanks,
Michal
