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

[Andrew F. Davis]

On 01/19/2017 11:59 AM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Okay, I will deferred to your judgment on this for now, I'll remove them
for v2.

Thanks,
Andrew

> Thanks and regards,
> Lokesh
>