[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] defconfig: Add a config for AM335x High Security EVM

[Lokesh Vutla]

On Thursday 19 January 2017 09:29 PM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 10:14 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>
>> [..snip..]
>>
>>>>>>> +CONFIG_OF_LIST="am335x-evm am335x-bone am335x-boneblack am335x-evmsk am335x-bonegreen am335x-icev2"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just wondering, do we have HS variants of all these boards? If not we
>>>>>> can just keep am335x-evm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't "technically" have HS vs non-HS versions of any board, the
>>>>> boards are the same, the non-HS ones simply have the security features
>>>>> locked out. If the silicon they put on any of these boards is not locked
>>>>> out then it becomes an HS board.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, yes, I only know of unlocked AM335x's currently being placed on the
>>>>> standard EVMs for now.
>>>>>
>>>> okay. Then drop all the other dtbs from the list.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what that would get us, the differences between non-HS and
>>> HS have nothing to do with the devices on the boards. This will only
>>> create a support burden if someone gets an unlocked Beaglebone for
>>> instance. Why limit the *more* feature-full chip? HS chips needs to be
>>> thought of as they are, a superset of the non-HS chips, not as a
>>> different kind of chip.
>>
>> Is this officially supported? Have you tested before posting?
>> If no then there should not be any argument for adding this support
>> assuming this can possibly be useful or experimental.
>>
> 
> I have tested this on the -EVM and will not test this on other boards.
> The type of board used is unrelated to adding boot authentication. This
> is not a new chip or board, it is a configuration change defconfig only.
> (If we could include other defconfigs like we can DTB files then this
> defconfig would include the regular defconfig and add a few lines. This
> would be useful for merging all the am335x/am43xx defconfig variations
> that have started to get rather out of sync with each other).
> 
> Think if I added an I2C driver, there would be no need to test it on
> every board U-Boot supports, just one, and if it didn't work on some
> board that would be a bug against the board, not against the driver.

The point here is what is being officially supported. Even the $subject
says only *AM335x High security evm* but the patch adds support for all
boards with HS silicon. Also look at the size of the image that is
getting bloated when you know you are using only 1 evm.

I understand that it is good to have but I am saying that it can be
added easily when someone *really* needs it.

Thanks and regards,
Lokesh