uboot FIT signature difference

Frank Wunderlich frank-w at public-files.de
Sun Oct 10 19:51:28 CEST 2021


i try to create a upstream uboot binary for use with rockchip rk3568 (bananapi r2 pro). Currently i'm on preparation phase as i don't have the hardware yet (so i cannot test it).

First thanks to everybody upstreamed support for this SOC in uboot and linux.

i found a compiled uboot.img with this signature:

FIT Image with ATF/OP-TEE/U-Boot

my created itb (make u-boot.itb) has this signature:

FIT image for U-Boot with bl31 (TF-A)

can anybody give me a hint how to create same signature as above? or where i have to look...

i guess the uboot.img is created using this source:

as far as i see the itb gets generated from the dtb

  OBJCOPY u-boot-nodtb.bin
./"arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py" \
arch/arm/dts/rk3568-evb.dtb > u-boot.its
  RELOC   u-boot-nodtb.bin
  MKIMAGE u-boot.itb

op-tee seems to be a lib only in rockchip repo, not upstream


seems to be some kind of secure boot, idk if this is needed to boot the device

i wonder why uboot differentiate between ATF and BL31...imho BL31 is part of ATF, do i need all parts of ATF (at least BL2) to get same signature? i have some rk3568_ddr_xxxxMHz_v1.08.bin which can be BL2 (did not found any signature and Rockchip ATF source is afaik not yet released, at least not for rk35xx which is new).

"my" source is this:


regards Frank

More information about the U-Boot mailing list