| Message ID | 20250203132307.2862016-1-a-limaye@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Ryan Eatmon |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [meta-ti,scarthgap] conf: machine: am69: Update filenames for initial bootloader tiboot3 | expand |
On 2/3/2025 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: > Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot recipe > and also the files expected by the wic image. > > So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file > and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the > configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does > not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for am69-sk > should reflect support for the same. The corresponding > > This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and hence > it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the current default BSP. Which right now is 6.12. So can you flip this patch around? Make the default be the new name and add multiple settings for the old name on the other BSPs? I think it would be more confusing to try and unravel the twisty maze of settings otherwise if we don't have a standard. > Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> > --- > This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for > ti-u-boot-2025.01. > > The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when merged > there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ > --- > meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ > meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ > require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc > > SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" > +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" > SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" > +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" > SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" > > UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc > PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" > > # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS > -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" > +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. > +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" > +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" > > -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version for SR1.0 HS-SE > -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" > +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" > > TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" >
On 03/02/25 20:16, Ryan Eatmon wrote: > > > On 2/3/2025 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: >> Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot recipe >> and also the files expected by the wic image. >> >> So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file >> and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the >> configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does >> not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for am69-sk >> should reflect support for the same. The corresponding >> >> This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and hence >> it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. > > Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the current > default BSP. Which right now is 6.12. > > So can you flip this patch around? Make the default be the new name and > add multiple settings for the old name on the other BSPs? I think it > would be more confusing to try and unravel the twisty maze of settings > otherwise if we don't have a standard. > Yeah I can do that... I was wondering the same but thought I would keep the patch smaller by adding an override for only the BSP that requires it, instead of override for every other BSP. But yeah since overrides will not be required for upstream eventually, makes sense to do it the other way around from the get go. Will send a v2 Another question I had was about the SYSFW_* variables... These are ONLY being used by SPL_BINARY variable defined in k3r5.inc for the u-boot recipe. Should I rename those variables to UBOOT_*, since it is quite confusing currently. Eg: SYSFW_SOC = am69 but will use tifs binary with j784s4 and produce tiboot3-am69-*.bin Infact why not define SPL_BINARY directly in <board>-k3r5.conf instead of having these additional unnecessary variables to configure the SPL_BINARY from k3r5.inc Maybe I'll address this in v2 as well... > >> Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> >> --- >> This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for >> ti-u-boot-2025.01. >> >> The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when merged >> there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. >> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ >> --- >> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ >> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- >> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >> index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 >> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >> @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ >> require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc >> SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" >> +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" >> SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" >> +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" >> SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" >> UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" >> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >> index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 >> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >> @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc >> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" >> # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS >> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" >> +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. >> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin >> tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin >> tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" >> -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version for >> SR1.0 HS-SE >> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >> +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" >> TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" >
On 2/3/2025 9:25 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: > > > On 03/02/25 20:16, Ryan Eatmon wrote: >> >> >> On 2/3/2025 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: >>> Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot recipe >>> and also the files expected by the wic image. >>> >>> So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file >>> and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the >>> configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does >>> not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for am69-sk >>> should reflect support for the same. The corresponding >>> >>> This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and hence >>> it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. >> >> Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the >> current default BSP. Which right now is 6.12. >> >> So can you flip this patch around? Make the default be the new name >> and add multiple settings for the old name on the other BSPs? I think >> it would be more confusing to try and unravel the twisty maze of >> settings otherwise if we don't have a standard. >> > > Yeah I can do that... I was wondering the same but thought I would keep > the patch smaller by adding an override for only the BSP that requires > it, instead of override for every other BSP. But yeah since overrides > will not be required for upstream eventually, makes sense to do it the > other way around from the get go. Will send a v2 > > Another question I had was about the SYSFW_* variables... These are ONLY > being used by SPL_BINARY variable defined in k3r5.inc for the u-boot > recipe. Should I rename those variables to UBOOT_*, since it is quite > confusing currently. > Eg: SYSFW_SOC = am69 but will use tifs binary with j784s4 and produce > tiboot3-am69-*.bin > > Infact why not define SPL_BINARY directly in <board>-k3r5.conf instead > of having these additional unnecessary variables to configure the > SPL_BINARY from k3r5.inc Generally speaking, I'm not opposed to cleaning up variable names to be more clear, but since this would be a change that would impact all platforms, I would prefer this patch leave the SYSFW stuff and then submit a second patch that cleans up all of the platforms at once. The only issue I can see with naming them UBOOT_* is that it might be confusing that these variable are used in the uboot recipe itself. Maybe TI_UBOOT_* would better to show that they are TI specific variables. > Maybe I'll address this in v2 as well... > >> >>> Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> >>> --- >>> This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for >>> ti-u-boot-2025.01. >>> >>> The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when merged >>> there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. >>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ >>> --- >>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ >>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- >>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>> index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 >>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>> @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ >>> require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc >>> SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" >>> +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" >>> SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" >>> +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" >>> SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" >>> UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" >>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>> index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 >>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>> @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc >>> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" >>> # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS >>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" >>> +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. >>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin >>> tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin >>> tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" >>> -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version for >>> SR1.0 HS-SE >>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>> +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" >>> TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" >>
On 2/3/2025 9:35 AM, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > On 2/3/2025 9:25 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: >> >> >> On 03/02/25 20:16, Ryan Eatmon wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2/3/2025 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: >>>> Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot >>>> recipe >>>> and also the files expected by the wic image. >>>> >>>> So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file >>>> and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the >>>> configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does >>>> not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for >>>> am69-sk >>>> should reflect support for the same. The corresponding >>>> >>>> This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and >>>> hence >>>> it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. >>> >>> Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the >>> current default BSP. Which right now is 6.12. >>> >>> So can you flip this patch around? Make the default be the new name >>> and add multiple settings for the old name on the other BSPs? I >>> think it would be more confusing to try and unravel the twisty maze >>> of settings otherwise if we don't have a standard. >>> >> >> Yeah I can do that... I was wondering the same but thought I would >> keep the patch smaller by adding an override for only the BSP that >> requires it, instead of override for every other BSP. But yeah since >> overrides will not be required for upstream eventually, makes sense to >> do it the other way around from the get go. Will send a v2 >> >> Another question I had was about the SYSFW_* variables... These are >> ONLY being used by SPL_BINARY variable defined in k3r5.inc for the >> u-boot recipe. Should I rename those variables to UBOOT_*, since it is >> quite confusing currently. >> Eg: SYSFW_SOC = am69 but will use tifs binary with j784s4 and produce >> tiboot3-am69-*.bin >> >> Infact why not define SPL_BINARY directly in <board>-k3r5.conf instead >> of having these additional unnecessary variables to configure the >> SPL_BINARY from k3r5.inc > > Generally speaking, I'm not opposed to cleaning up variable names to be > more clear, but since this would be a change that would impact all > platforms, I would prefer this patch leave the SYSFW stuff and then > submit a second patch that cleans up all of the platforms at once. > > The only issue I can see with naming them UBOOT_* is that it might be > confusing that these variable are used in the uboot recipe itself. Maybe > TI_UBOOT_* would better to show that they are TI specific variables. I also meant to say... Using the multiple variables makes it really easy to build a consistent naming system for SPL_BINARY. By setting it directly in each machine config you run the risk of the naming drifting across platforms. > >> Maybe I'll address this in v2 as well... >> >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> >>>> --- >>>> This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for >>>> ti-u-boot-2025.01. >>>> >>>> The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when >>>> merged >>>> there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ >>>> --- >>>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ >>>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- >>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>> index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 >>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>> @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ >>>> require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc >>>> SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" >>>> +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" >>>> SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" >>>> +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" >>>> SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" >>>> UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" >>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>> index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 >>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>> @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc >>>> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= >>>> "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" >>>> # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS >>>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" >>>> +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. >>>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin >>>> tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin >>>> tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" >>>> -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version for >>>> SR1.0 HS-SE >>>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>>> +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" >>>> TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" >>> > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#18245): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18245 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110970137/6551054 > Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [reatmon@ti.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
On 03/02/25 21:10, Ryan Eatmon wrote: > > > On 2/3/2025 9:35 AM, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >> >> >> On 2/3/2025 9:25 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 03/02/25 20:16, Ryan Eatmon wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/3/2025 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: >>>>> Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot >>>>> recipe >>>>> and also the files expected by the wic image. >>>>> >>>>> So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file >>>>> and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the >>>>> configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does >>>>> not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for >>>>> am69-sk >>>>> should reflect support for the same. The corresponding >>>>> >>>>> This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and >>>>> hence >>>>> it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. >>>> >>>> Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the >>>> current default BSP. Which right now is 6.12. >>>> >>>> So can you flip this patch around? Make the default be the new name >>>> and add multiple settings for the old name on the other BSPs? I >>>> think it would be more confusing to try and unravel the twisty maze >>>> of settings otherwise if we don't have a standard. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah I can do that... I was wondering the same but thought I would >>> keep the patch smaller by adding an override for only the BSP that >>> requires it, instead of override for every other BSP. But yeah since >>> overrides will not be required for upstream eventually, makes sense >>> to do it the other way around from the get go. Will send a v2 >>> >>> Another question I had was about the SYSFW_* variables... These are >>> ONLY being used by SPL_BINARY variable defined in k3r5.inc for the >>> u-boot recipe. Should I rename those variables to UBOOT_*, since it >>> is quite confusing currently. >>> Eg: SYSFW_SOC = am69 but will use tifs binary with j784s4 and produce >>> tiboot3-am69-*.bin >>> >>> Infact why not define SPL_BINARY directly in <board>-k3r5.conf >>> instead of having these additional unnecessary variables to configure >>> the SPL_BINARY from k3r5.inc >> >> Generally speaking, I'm not opposed to cleaning up variable names to >> be more clear, but since this would be a change that would impact all >> platforms, I would prefer this patch leave the SYSFW stuff and then >> submit a second patch that cleans up all of the platforms at once. >> >> The only issue I can see with naming them UBOOT_* is that it might be >> confusing that these variable are used in the uboot recipe itself. >> Maybe TI_UBOOT_* would better to show that they are TI specific >> variables. > > I also meant to say... > > Using the multiple variables makes it really easy to build a consistent > naming system for SPL_BINARY. By setting it directly in each machine > config you run the risk of the naming drifting across platforms. Fair enough... And yes was going to keep it a separate patch for the cleanup. Thanks, Aniket > >> >>> Maybe I'll address this in v2 as well... >>> >>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for >>>>> ti-u-boot-2025.01. >>>>> >>>>> The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when >>>>> merged >>>>> there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ >>>>> --- >>>>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ >>>>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- >>>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>> index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 >>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>> @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ >>>>> require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc >>>>> SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" >>>>> +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" >>>>> SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" >>>>> +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" >>>>> SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" >>>>> UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" >>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>> index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 >>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>> @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc >>>>> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= >>>>> "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" >>>>> # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS >>>>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" >>>>> +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. >>>>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin >>>>> tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>>>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin >>>>> tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" >>>>> -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version >>>>> for SR1.0 HS-SE >>>>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>>>> +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" >>>>> TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" >>>> >> >> >> >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. >> View/Reply Online (#18245): >> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18245 >> Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110970137/6551054 >> Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub >> [reatmon@ti.com] >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >> >
On 03/02/25 21:33, Aniket Limaye via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > On 03/02/25 21:10, Ryan Eatmon wrote: >> >> >> On 2/3/2025 9:35 AM, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2/3/2025 9:25 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 03/02/25 20:16, Ryan Eatmon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/3/2025 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: >>>>>> Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot >>>>>> recipe >>>>>> and also the files expected by the wic image. >>>>>> >>>>>> So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include >>>>>> file >>>>>> and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the >>>>>> configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary >>>>>> does >>>>>> not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for >>>>>> am69-sk >>>>>> should reflect support for the same. The corresponding >>>>>> >>>>>> This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and >>>>>> hence >>>>>> it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. >>>>> >>>>> Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the >>>>> current default BSP. Which right now is 6.12. >>>>> >>>>> So can you flip this patch around? Make the default be the new >>>>> name and add multiple settings for the old name on the other BSPs? >>>>> I think it would be more confusing to try and unravel the twisty >>>>> maze of settings otherwise if we don't have a standard. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah I can do that... I was wondering the same but thought I would >>>> keep the patch smaller by adding an override for only the BSP that >>>> requires it, instead of override for every other BSP. But yeah since >>>> overrides will not be required for upstream eventually, makes sense >>>> to do it the other way around from the get go. Will send a v2 >>>> >>>> Another question I had was about the SYSFW_* variables... These are >>>> ONLY being used by SPL_BINARY variable defined in k3r5.inc for the >>>> u-boot recipe. Should I rename those variables to UBOOT_*, since it >>>> is quite confusing currently. >>>> Eg: SYSFW_SOC = am69 but will use tifs binary with j784s4 and >>>> produce tiboot3-am69-*.bin >>>> >>>> Infact why not define SPL_BINARY directly in <board>-k3r5.conf >>>> instead of having these additional unnecessary variables to >>>> configure the SPL_BINARY from k3r5.inc >>> >>> Generally speaking, I'm not opposed to cleaning up variable names to >>> be more clear, but since this would be a change that would impact all >>> platforms, I would prefer this patch leave the SYSFW stuff and then >>> submit a second patch that cleans up all of the platforms at once. >>> >>> The only issue I can see with naming them UBOOT_* is that it might be >>> confusing that these variable are used in the uboot recipe itself. >>> Maybe TI_UBOOT_* would better to show that they are TI specific >>> variables. >> >> I also meant to say... >> >> Using the multiple variables makes it really easy to build a >> consistent naming system for SPL_BINARY. By setting it directly in >> each machine config you run the risk of the naming drifting across >> platforms. > > Fair enough... Although on the other hand, if I keep it as multiple variables, all of those multiple variables need to be overridden in the case of this patch, for 4 BSP versions. Instead of overriding the SPL_BINARY variable for 4 BSPs (next, mainline, 6.6, 6.1), I will need to override 2 of those SYSFW_ variables for 4 BSPs. Just doesn't seem very clean when all it does is override one filename? Unless you'd prefer, specifically in this case, to override the SPL_BINARY directly while also keeping the SYSFW_* variables for the default case. > And yes was going to keep it a separate patch for the cleanup. > > Thanks, > Aniket > >> >>> >>>> Maybe I'll address this in v2 as well... >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch >>>>>> for >>>>>> ti-u-boot-2025.01. >>>>>> >>>>>> The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when >>>>>> merged >>>>>> there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. >>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ >>>>>> --- >>>>>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ >>>>>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- >>>>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>>> index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 >>>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>>> @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ >>>>>> require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc >>>>>> SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" >>>>>> +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" >>>>>> SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" >>>>>> +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" >>>>>> SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" >>>>>> UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" >>>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>>> index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 >>>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>>> @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc >>>>>> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= >>>>>> "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" >>>>>> # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS >>>>>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" >>>>>> +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. >>>>>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin >>>>>> tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>>>>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin >>>>>> tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" >>>>>> -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version >>>>>> for SR1.0 HS-SE >>>>>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>>>>> +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" >>>>>> TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#18247): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18247 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110970137/6607860 > Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [a-limaye@ti.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
On 2/3/2025 10:09 AM, Aniket Limaye via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > On 03/02/25 21:33, Aniket Limaye via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >> >> >> On 03/02/25 21:10, Ryan Eatmon wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2/3/2025 9:35 AM, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/3/2025 9:25 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 03/02/25 20:16, Ryan Eatmon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/3/2025 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: >>>>>>> Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot >>>>>>> recipe >>>>>>> and also the files expected by the wic image. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include >>>>>>> file >>>>>>> and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the >>>>>>> configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary >>>>>>> does >>>>>>> not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for >>>>>>> am69-sk >>>>>>> should reflect support for the same. The corresponding >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, >>>>>>> and hence >>>>>>> it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the >>>>>> current default BSP. Which right now is 6.12. >>>>>> >>>>>> So can you flip this patch around? Make the default be the new >>>>>> name and add multiple settings for the old name on the other BSPs? >>>>>> I think it would be more confusing to try and unravel the twisty >>>>>> maze of settings otherwise if we don't have a standard. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yeah I can do that... I was wondering the same but thought I would >>>>> keep the patch smaller by adding an override for only the BSP that >>>>> requires it, instead of override for every other BSP. But yeah >>>>> since overrides will not be required for upstream eventually, makes >>>>> sense to do it the other way around from the get go. Will send a v2 >>>>> >>>>> Another question I had was about the SYSFW_* variables... These are >>>>> ONLY being used by SPL_BINARY variable defined in k3r5.inc for the >>>>> u-boot recipe. Should I rename those variables to UBOOT_*, since it >>>>> is quite confusing currently. >>>>> Eg: SYSFW_SOC = am69 but will use tifs binary with j784s4 and >>>>> produce tiboot3-am69-*.bin >>>>> >>>>> Infact why not define SPL_BINARY directly in <board>-k3r5.conf >>>>> instead of having these additional unnecessary variables to >>>>> configure the SPL_BINARY from k3r5.inc >>>> >>>> Generally speaking, I'm not opposed to cleaning up variable names to >>>> be more clear, but since this would be a change that would impact >>>> all platforms, I would prefer this patch leave the SYSFW stuff and >>>> then submit a second patch that cleans up all of the platforms at once. >>>> >>>> The only issue I can see with naming them UBOOT_* is that it might >>>> be confusing that these variable are used in the uboot recipe >>>> itself. Maybe TI_UBOOT_* would better to show that they are TI >>>> specific variables. >>> >>> I also meant to say... >>> >>> Using the multiple variables makes it really easy to build a >>> consistent naming system for SPL_BINARY. By setting it directly in >>> each machine config you run the risk of the naming drifting across >>> platforms. >> >> Fair enough... > > Although on the other hand, if I keep it as multiple variables, all of > those multiple variables need to be overridden in the case of this > patch, for 4 BSP versions. Instead of overriding the SPL_BINARY variable > for 4 BSPs (next, mainline, 6.6, 6.1), I will need to override 2 of > those SYSFW_ variables for 4 BSPs. Just doesn't seem very clean when all > it does is override one filename? > > Unless you'd prefer, specifically in this case, to override the > SPL_BINARY directly while also keeping the SYSFW_* variables for the > default case. I would prefer to *NOT* override SPL_BINARY for this patch. What does SPL_BINARY feed into? Is that name something that comes out of binman from uboot? or is it just a name that yocto is using to name the file in the deploy directory? If it is solely a yocto thing, then we can change the order of the variables in the file and merge SYSFW_SOC and SYSFW_CONFIG into a single variable. That would reduce the number of variables you would need to be setting with this patches change. But again, that's for a second clean up patch... > >> And yes was going to keep it a separate patch for the cleanup. >> >> Thanks, >> Aniket >> >>> >>>> >>>>> Maybe I'll address this in v2 as well... >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding >>>>>>> patch for >>>>>>> ti-u-boot-2025.01. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when >>>>>>> merged >>>>>>> there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ >>>>>>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>>>> index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>>>>>> @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ >>>>>>> require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc >>>>>>> SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" >>>>>>> +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" >>>>>>> SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" >>>>>>> +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" >>>>>>> SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" >>>>>>> UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" >>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>>>> b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>>>> index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>>>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>>>>>> @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc >>>>>>> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= >>>>>>> "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" >>>>>>> # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS >>>>>>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" >>>>>>> +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. >>>>>>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin >>>>>>> tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>>>>>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin >>>>>>> tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" >>>>>>> -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version >>>>>>> for SR1.0 HS-SE >>>>>>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>>>>>> +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" >>>>>>> TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#18248): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18248 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110970137/6551054 > Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [reatmon@ti.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 08:55:49PM +0530, Aniket Limaye via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > On 03/02/25 20:16, Ryan Eatmon wrote: > > > > > >On 2/3/2025 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye wrote: > >>Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot recipe > >>and also the files expected by the wic image. > >> > >>So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file > >>and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the > >>configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does > >>not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for am69-sk > >>should reflect support for the same. The corresponding > >> > >>This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and hence > >>it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. > > > >Actually... I would prefer to align all of the defaults with the > >current default BSP. Which right now is 6.12. > > > >So can you flip this patch around? Make the default be the new > >name and add multiple settings for the old name on the other > >BSPs? I think it would be more confusing to try and unravel the > >twisty maze of settings otherwise if we don't have a standard. > > > > Yeah I can do that... I was wondering the same but thought I would > keep the patch smaller by adding an override for only the BSP that > requires it, instead of override for every other BSP. But yeah since > overrides will not be required for upstream eventually, makes sense > to do it the other way around from the get go. Will send a v2 > > Another question I had was about the SYSFW_* variables... These are > ONLY being used by SPL_BINARY variable defined in k3r5.inc for the > u-boot recipe. Should I rename those variables to UBOOT_*, since it > is quite confusing currently. > Eg: SYSFW_SOC = am69 but will use tifs binary with j784s4 and > produce tiboot3-am69-*.bin Before binman addition to U-boot, all those SYSFW_* variables were used by ti-sci-fw recipe to build and package SYSFW: https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-ti/commit/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/ti-sci-fw/ti-sci-fw_git.bb?id=835811cf8586926cf78a961d090f4e6150432235 These days most of K3 devices package SYSFW into tiboot3.bin, which is R5 SPL, but first two K3 devices (am65 and j721e) had SYSFW as a separate FIT image. Also, different variants of tiboot3.bin (GP vs HS, multiple SRs) were built using multiconfigs (sometimes a lot of multiconfigs), but these days all variants are built at the same time by binman. So, SPL_BINARY variable, which gets composed from SYSFW_* variables, now only controls what is the default tiboot3.bin symlink... > Infact why not define SPL_BINARY directly in <board>-k3r5.conf > instead of having these additional unnecessary variables to > configure the SPL_BINARY from k3r5.inc > > Maybe I'll address this in v2 as well... > > > > >>Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> > >>--- > >>This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for > >>ti-u-boot-2025.01. > >> > >>The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when merged > >>there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. > >>https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ > >>--- > >> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ > >> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- > >> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > >>b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > >>index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 > >>--- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > >>+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > >>@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ > >> require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc > >> SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" > >>+SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" > >> SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" > >>+SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" > >> SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" > >> UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" > >>diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > >>b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > >>index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 > >>--- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > >>+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > >>@@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc > >> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" > >> # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS > >>-IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" > >>+# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. > >>+BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin > >>tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" > >>+BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin > >>tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" > >>-# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version > >>for SR1.0 HS-SE > >>-IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" > >>+IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" > >> TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" > >
On 2/3/25 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot recipe > and also the files expected by the wic image. > > So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file > and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the > configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does > not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for am69-sk > should reflect support for the same. The corresponding This is not correct. The SK and EVM use different defconfigs, there is no issue with two different builds producing output with the same filename. All builds produce a u-boot.img for example, no issue here. I've root caused the real issue, looks like a simple mistake in naming was made in the patch taken in our U-Boot evil vendor tree. The same patch was posted upstream also, which I've commented[0] on. So the correct name will go in upstream, and a fix backported to our tree. That means this patch will not be needed. Andrew [0] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/e815500f-e4a0-4deb-ae33-f98ca7021503@ti.com/ > > This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and hence > it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. > > Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> > --- > This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for > ti-u-boot-2025.01. > > The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when merged > there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ > --- > meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ > meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ > require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc > > SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" > +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" > SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" > +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" > SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" > > UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc > PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" > > # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS > -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" > +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. > +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" > +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" > > -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version for SR1.0 HS-SE > -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" > +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" > > TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#18242): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18242 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110970137/3619733 > Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [afd@ti.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
Hi Andrew, On 15:44-20250203, Andrew Davis wrote: > On 2/3/25 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot recipe > > and also the files expected by the wic image. > > > > So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file > > and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the > > configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does > > not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for am69-sk > > should reflect support for the same. The corresponding > > This is not correct. The SK and EVM use different defconfigs, there is > no issue with two different builds producing output with the same filename. > All builds produce a u-boot.img for example, no issue here. > I would argue that u-boot.img doesn't contain the name based on defconfigs, tiboot3 however contains the name of the binary generated so it's just confusing and nothing else. tiboot3.bin would anyways be a symlink to the correct one but the other binary names should be based on defconfig IMO. Have replied upstream to your comment as well. Regards Manorit > I've root caused the real issue, looks like a simple mistake in naming > was made in the patch taken in our U-Boot evil vendor tree. The same > patch was posted upstream also, which I've commented[0] on. So the > correct name will go in upstream, and a fix backported to our tree. > > That means this patch will not be needed. > > Andrew > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/e815500f-e4a0-4deb-ae33-f98ca7021503@ti.com/ > > > > > This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and hence > > it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. > > > > Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> > > --- > > This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for > > ti-u-boot-2025.01. > > > > The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when merged > > there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ > > --- > > meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ > > meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > > index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 > > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf > > @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ > > require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc > > SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" > > +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" > > SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" > > +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" > > SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" > > UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" > > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > > index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 > > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc > > @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc > > PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" > > # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS > > -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" > > +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. > > +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" > > +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" > > -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version for SR1.0 HS-SE > > -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" > > +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" > > TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#18242): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18242 > > Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110970137/3619733 > > Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [afd@ti.com] > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >
On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:20:16AM +0530, Manorit Chawdhry via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On 15:44-20250203, Andrew Davis wrote: > > On 2/3/25 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot recipe > > > and also the files expected by the wic image. > > > > > > So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file > > > and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the > > > configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does > > > not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for am69-sk > > > should reflect support for the same. The corresponding > > > > This is not correct. The SK and EVM use different defconfigs, there is > > no issue with two different builds producing output with the same filename. > > All builds produce a u-boot.img for example, no issue here. > > > > I would argue that u-boot.img doesn't contain the name based on > defconfigs, tiboot3 however contains the name of the binary generated so > it's just confusing and nothing else. tiboot3.bin would anyways be a > symlink to the correct one but the other binary names should be based on > defconfig IMO. Have replied upstream to your comment as well. From OE perspective: u-boot.img is just a short symlink. There's also u-boot-${MACHINE}.img symlink and they both point to u-boot-${MACHINE}-${PV}.img full name. That is the case when a single defconfig is used specified by UBOOT_MACHINE. When multiple defconfigs get built, listed by UBOOT_CONFIG, then each of the UBOOT_CONFIG names also get appended to the corresponding full name. This is very OE-specific - AFAIK U-boot doesn't support building multiple defconfigs for the same platform... There are multiple tiboot3.bin being produced, hence extra processing was added to name them accordingly. All these early boot artifacts go into the FAT boot partition, which doesn't support symlinks. If you do want short and long names to be on the SD card, you have to have multiple copies of the same file. And tiboot3.bin is quite small, so having both short and long names simplifies selecting the correct variant with little overhead...
On 2/3/25 10:50 PM, Manorit Chawdhry wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On 15:44-20250203, Andrew Davis wrote: >> On 2/3/25 7:18 AM, Aniket Limaye via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: >>> Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot recipe >>> and also the files expected by the wic image. >>> >>> So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file >>> and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the >>> configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does >>> not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for am69-sk >>> should reflect support for the same. The corresponding >> >> This is not correct. The SK and EVM use different defconfigs, there is >> no issue with two different builds producing output with the same filename. >> All builds produce a u-boot.img for example, no issue here. >> > > I would argue that u-boot.img doesn't contain the name based on > defconfigs, tiboot3 however contains the name of the binary generated so tiboot3 does not contain the name based on defconfigs either, it is based on the SYSFW blob contained. It is important we know which SYSFW was used. The defconfig used is not important as you can only build one defconfig at a time, you only get one set of output binaries per build. > it's just confusing and nothing else. tiboot3.bin would anyways be a > symlink to the correct one but the other binary names should be based on > defconfig IMO. Have replied upstream to your comment as well. There is no "correct one", the symlink just points to a common default. But folks are free to pick a different one based on their hardware. This is already the naming standard used here in Yocto, Debian, and probably other places. Changing it now to "avoid confusion" just causes more confusion. I've replied upstream also. Andrew > > Regards > Manorit > >> I've root caused the real issue, looks like a simple mistake in naming >> was made in the patch taken in our U-Boot evil vendor tree. The same >> patch was posted upstream also, which I've commented[0] on. So the >> correct name will go in upstream, and a fix backported to our tree. >> >> That means this patch will not be needed. >> >> Andrew >> >> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/e815500f-e4a0-4deb-ae33-f98ca7021503@ti.com/ >> >>> >>> This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and hence >>> it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> >>> --- >>> This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for >>> ti-u-boot-2025.01. >>> >>> The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when merged >>> there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. >>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ >>> --- >>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ >>> meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- >>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>> index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 >>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf >>> @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ >>> require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc >>> SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" >>> +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" >>> SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" >>> +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" >>> SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" >>> UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" >>> diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>> index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 >>> --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc >>> @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc >>> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" >>> # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS >>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" >>> +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. >>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>> +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" >>> -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version for SR1.0 HS-SE >>> -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" >>> +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" >>> TFA_BOARD = "j784s4" >>> >>> >>> >>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. >>> View/Reply Online (#18242): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/18242 >>> Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/110970137/3619733 >>> Group Owner: meta-ti+owner@lists.yoctoproject.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [afd@ti.com] >>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>>
diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf index 9d2b4cd6..376d8153 100644 --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ require conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc SYSFW_SOC = "j784s4" +SYSFW_SOC:bsp-ti-6_12 = "am69" SYSFW_CONFIG = "evm" +SYSFW_CONFIG:bsp-ti-6_12 = "sk" SYSFW_SUFFIX = "hs-fs" UBOOT_MACHINE = "am69_sk_r5_defconfig" diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc index da8a5a8b..e82d58e2 100644 --- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc @@ -9,10 +9,11 @@ require conf/machine/include/mesa-pvr.inc PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gpudriver ?= "${BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER}" # Default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for SR1.0 HS-FS -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin" +# Add tiboot3.bin for all SOC types, to the wic image. +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES = "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-fs-evm.bin tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" +BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES:bsp-ti-6_12 = "tiboot3-am69-hs-fs-sk.bin tiboot3-am69-hs-sk.bin" -# Since default tiboot3.bin on AM69 is for HS-FS, add a version for SR1.0 HS-SE -IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "tiboot3-j784s4-hs-evm.bin" +IMAGE_BOOT_FILES += "${BSP_BOOTLOADER_FILES}" TFA_BOARD = "j784s4"
Update the filenames for tiboot3.bin variants built by the u-boot recipe and also the files expected by the wic image. So far am69-sk and j784s4-evm have shared the same binman include file and hence the same filenames for u-boot images. However, with the configs and the devicetree being different, the same built binary does not support both boards. Hence the filenames of images built for am69-sk should reflect support for the same. The corresponding This change is currently only applicable to ti-u-boot-2025.01, and hence it is restricted to the override bsp-ti-6_12. Signed-off-by: Aniket Limaye <a-limaye@ti.com> --- This patch needs to be merged in sync with the corresponding patch for ti-u-boot-2025.01. The u-boot patch has also been posted to upstream u-boot and when merged there, the next/upstream BSP packages will also need this change. https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250106-b4-upstream-j742s2-v2-2-42d6129ce333@ti.com/ --- meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am69-sk-k3r5.conf | 2 ++ meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/am69.inc | 7 ++++--- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)