Hi Sam, On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 at 10:31, Sam Day <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ahoy Simon, > > On Monday, 8 June 2026 at 11:27 PM, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Sam, > > > > On 2026-06-07T23:37:09, Sam Day via B4 Relay > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > binman: android_boot: SEANDROIDENFORCE support > > > > > > Some older MSM8916-era bootloaders want to see this string appended to > > > the abootimg, or they log an ugly warning to the screen. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sam Day <[email protected]> > > > > > > tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py | 11 +++++++++++ > > > tools/binman/ftest.py | 6 ++++++ > > > .../test/vendor/android_boot_seandroidenforce.dts | 22 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+) > > > > > diff --git a/tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py > > > b/tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py > > > @@ -55,6 +57,7 @@ class Entry_android_boot(Entry_section): > > > - os-version: Encoded Android OS version and patch level, > > > defaults to 0 > > > - boot-name: Android boot image board name > > > - cmdline: Android boot command line > > > + - append-seandroid-enforce: Append Samsung SEANDROIDENFORCE > > > trailer, > > > > Calling this 'Samsung' is misleading given the commit message > > attributes it to MSM8916-era bootloaders - perhaps 'Append the > > SEANDROIDENFORCE trailer expected by some MSM8916/Samsung > > bootloaders'. > > > > > diff --git a/tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py > > > b/tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py > > > @@ -174,6 +180,9 @@ class Entry_android_boot(Entry_section): > > > self.Raise('page-size must fit the Android boot image > > > header') > > > if 'dtb' not in self._entries: > > > self.Raise("Missing required subnode 'dtb'") > > > + if self.append_seandroid: > > > + self.Raise("Property 'append-seandroid-enforce' requires > > > " > > > + "header-version 0") > > > > Just to check, is this a hard restriction of the format, or only a > > reflection of which bootloaders are known to want this trailer? If v2 > > images can legitimately carry it too, it would be more flexible to > > allow it. If it really is invalid, please add a short note in the > > commit message saying why. > > > > > diff --git a/tools/binman/ftest.py b/tools/binman/ftest.py > > > @@ -5673,6 +5673,12 @@ fdt fdtmap Extract the > > > devicetree blob from the fdtmap > > > + def testAndroidBootSeAndroidEnforce(self): > > > + """Test that binman appends SEANDROIDENFORCE""" > > > + data = > > > self._DoReadFile('vendor/android_boot_seandroidenforce.dts') > > > + > > > + self.assertEqual(b'SEANDROIDENFORCE', data[-16:]) > > > > Please add a negative test for the v2 + append-seandroid-enforce > > combination, to lock in the Raise(). It would also be worth asserting > > the rest of the image (header, kernel page, ramdisk page) is intact, > > so a regression that truncates the body but leaves the trailer in > > place would still be caught. > > I've since realized that this entire patch is unnecessary, and I've > dropped it from v3. Rather than codifying this, we can just take > advantage of the flexibility binman already offers through the > section etype, in conjunction with the text etype: > > binman { > android_boot { ... }; > text { text = "SEANDROIDENFORCE"; }; > }; > > Quite awesome, really :)
Ah, yes. Even so, if you want this as its own etype, you could subclass the text one with a default/fixed string string. Regards, Simon
