[PATCH v4 0/3] binman: Further updates for FIT support

[Michal Simek]

On 12. 09. 20 22:43, Samuel Holland wrote:
> On 9/7/20 3:44 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On 06. 09. 20 18:39, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> This series adds support for help messages when binary blobs are missing,
>>> as well as selecting the default FIT configuration.
>>>
>>> It includes the v3 patches from the earlier series that were not applied.
>>>
>>> Note: This series is available at u-boot-dm/binman-working and is based
>>> on u-boot-dm/next
>>>
>>> Changes in v4:
>>> - Add more documentation for DEFAULT-SEQ
>>> - Drop patches previous applied to u-boot-dm/next
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>> - Add a way to show help messages for missing blobs
>>> - Rebase on top of earlier binman series
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Add new patch to allow selecting default FIT configuration
>>>
>>> Simon Glass (3):
>>>   binman: Allow selecting default FIT configuration
>>>   binman: Support help messages for missing blobs
>>>   binman: sunxi: Add help message for missing sunxi ATF BL31
>>>
>>>  Makefile                                      |  2 +
>>>  arch/arm/dts/sunxi-u-boot.dtsi                |  1 +
>>>  tools/binman/README                           |  6 ++
>>>  tools/binman/README.entries                   |  4 ++
>>>  tools/binman/control.py                       | 69 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  tools/binman/entry.py                         |  9 +++
>>>  tools/binman/etype/fit.py                     | 26 +++++++
>>>  tools/binman/ftest.py                         | 59 ++++++++++++++--
>>>  tools/binman/missing-blob-help                | 15 ++++
>>>  tools/binman/test/168_fit_missing_blob.dts    |  9 ++-
>>>  .../test/{170_fit_fdt.dts => 172_fit_fdt.dts} |  2 +-
>>>  11 files changed, 195 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>  create mode 100644 tools/binman/missing-blob-help
>>>  rename tools/binman/test/{170_fit_fdt.dts => 172_fit_fdt.dts} (95%)
>>>
>>
>> I just spot one thing and will be good to clearify it.
>>
>> In sunxi this description is used.
>> +					firmware = "uboot";
>> +					loadables = "atf";
>>
>> But is this right way how this should be described?
> 
> No, this is backwards. I have sent a patch to fix this along with the script it
> was copied from:
> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200906032615.40448-8-samuel@sholland.org/

great.

Thanks,
Michal