Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm: dts: k3-am625: add template for tiboot3.bin
Anshul Dalal <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue Jul 28, 2026 at 4:46 PM IST, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Anshul, > > On 2026-07-17T10:42:51, Anshul Dalal <[email protected]> wrote: >> arm: dts: k3-am625: add template for tiboot3.bin [snip] >> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-binman.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-binman.dtsi >> @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ >> + tiboot3_am625_hs_fs_template: template-tiboot3-hs-fs { >> + symlink = "tiboot3.bin"; >> + ti-secure-rom { > > This bakes a policy into the template - that hs-fs is the default > tiboot3 - but the hs and gp templates deliberately don't. All three > callers (sk, verdin, phycore) already set symlink = "tiboot3.bin" on > the hs-fs node themselves, and on the r5 beagleplay the symlink lives > on the gp node. Would it be OK to drop this line so all three > templates are symmetric? Yeah, putting symlink in the template is not the right approach. I'll fix it in the v2. > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-r5-beagleplay.dts b/arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-r5-beagleplay.dts >> @@ -33,38 +33,7 @@ >> tiboot3-am62x-gp-evm.bin { >> filename = "tiboot3-am62x-gp-evm.bin"; >> symlink = "tiboot3.bin"; >> - ti-secure-rom { >> - content = <&u_boot_spl_unsigned>, <&ti_fs_gp>, >> - <&combined_tifs_cfg_gp>, <&combined_dm_cfg_gp>; > > ... >> - load = <0x43c00000>; > > The original hardcodes load = <0x43c00000> whereas the template uses > load = <CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE>. These resolve to the same value today > (the ARCH_K3 && !ARM64 default is 0x43c00000, and no R5 defconfig here > overrides it), so it is a no-op - but please mention it in the commit > message under 'No functional change is intended' so the next reader > doesn't have to chase Kconfig defaults. > This value is specific to the SoC and will not change for AM62x but I will add a note in the commit message for the change anyways. >> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-binman.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/k3-am625-binman.dtsi >> @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ >> + tiboot3_am625_gp_template: template-tiboot3-gp { >> + ti-secure-rom { >> + content = <&u_boot_spl_unsigned>, <&ti_fs_gp>, >> + <&combined_tifs_cfg_gp>, <&combined_dm_cfg_gp>; > > Just to check - the property ordering inside ti-secure-rom here > (content-sbl / load / content-sysfw / load-sysfw / … then sw-rev / > keyfile) differs from the hs and hs-fs templates, which group all > content-* first and load-* last. Both work, but since you are > consolidating anyway it would read better if the three followed the > same layout. What do you think? > Yeah, that's fair. I'll re-order the gp template to match the other two. Thanks for the review, Anshul