On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:58:04 +0530, Gokul Praveen <[email protected]> wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-binman.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/k3-binman.dtsi
> index ad127663d03b..aa8479bc0f67 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/dts/k3-binman.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/k3-binman.dtsi
> @@ -543,6 +543,53 @@
> };
> };
>
> + ti_nospl_template: template-16 {
> + filename = "tinospl.bin";
Asides from the filename and fit description, this template looks identical to
the existing 'ti_falcon_template' for AM62 family of SoCs, could we reuse that
here?
> [ ... skip 12 lines ... ]
> + os = "arm-trusted-firmware";
> + load = <CONFIG_K3_ATF_LOAD_ADDR>;
> + entry = <CONFIG_K3_ATF_LOAD_ADDR>;
> + atf-bl31 {
> + filename = "bl31.bin";
> + };
Why don't we have ti-secure nodes here?
> + };
> + tee {
> + description = "OP-TEE";
> + type = "tee";
> + arch = "arm64";
> + compression = "none";
> + os = "tee";
> + load = <CONFIG_K3_OPTEE_LOAD_ADDR>;
> + entry = <CONFIG_K3_OPTEE_LOAD_ADDR>;
> + tee-os {
> + filename = "tee-raw.bin";
> + optional;
> + };
No ti-secure node here too?
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi
> b/arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi
> index 34b2cc1e681f..0dec4316d6b4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/k3-j784s4-binman.dtsi
> @@ -317,4 +317,69 @@
> [ ... skip 16 lines ... ]
> + description = UBOOT_BOARD_DESCRIPTION;
> + type = "firmware";
> + os = "u-boot";
> + arch = "arm";
> + compression = "none";
> + load = <CONFIG_TEXT_BASE>;
A bit of a hack but if we use 'CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE' here, the default defconfig
should produce a functional tinospl.bin too. No config fragments should be
required.
--
Anshul Dalal <[email protected]>
