On Mon, Jul 13 2026, "Simon Glass" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Rasmus, > > On 2026-07-10T12:36:12, Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> wrote: >> k3-binman.dtsi: insert keyfile and distinguished name templates in all >> ti-secure(-rom) nodes >> >> This should not make any functional difference, and downstream boards >> that already override the keyfile property via an explicit .dtsi >> fragment for each node will continue to have precedence over the value >> coming from the template. But this makes it much more ergonomic to >> have the keyfile and distinguished-name have consistent values >> throughout, because one only has to override the values in the >> templates and not each and every individual node. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> >> >> arch/arm/dts/k3-binman.dtsi | 20 ++++++++++---------- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > >> k3-binman.dtsi: insert keyfile and distinguished name templates in all >> ti-secure(-rom) nodes > > I still see lots of custMpk.pem in .dtsi files after this series so > I'm not sure of the exact mechanism for your claim in this series. I > was expecting it to remove all of those? Well, changing those are not needed for my immediate purpose, I only need those in k3-binman.dtsi to be updated, as that is the only upstream file I include. Yes, they should probably all be updated, but I didn't want to pollute this series with tons of mechanical changes, that can be done as a followup if and when this lands. >> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-binman.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/k3-binman.dtsi >> @@ -330,8 +330,8 @@ >> ti-secure { >> + insert-template = >> <&keyfile_template>, <&distinguished_name_template>; >> content = <&u_boot_spl_nodtb>; >> - keyfile = 'custMpk.pem'; >> >> }; > > Removing the keyfile property leaves a stray blank line before the > closing brace. Please can you drop that while you are at it? Of course. Rasmus
