[SPAM] [PATCH v5 4/7] rockchip: Support building the all output files in binman

[Jerome Forissier]

On 12/9/22 15:24, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On 12/8/22 18:32, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Xavier,
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 at 03:25, Xavier Drudis Ferran <xdrudis at tinet.cat> wrote:
>>>
>>> El Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 08:56:57AM +1300, Simon Glass deia:
>>>> +                             @tee-SEQ {
>>>> +                                     fit,operation = "split-elf";
>>>> +                                     description = "TEE";
>>>> +                                     type = "tee";
>>>> +                                     arch = "arm64";
>>>> +                                     os = "tee";
>>>> +                                     compression = "none";
>>>> +                                     fit,load;
>>>> +                                     fit,entry;
>>>> +                                     fit,data;
>>>> +
>>>> +                                     tee-os {
>>>> +                                     };
>>>> +                             };
>>>
>>> I don't know, I may likely have missed something here, but are you sure you're
>>> taking Jerome into account ?
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2022-July/490069.html__;!!OOPJP91ZZw!ltyK0RA-1Vj1dgI1cBlgG1bJOhuZ4JGxwGBIl-Nt-hFz0eZTXmQKALvE9wCKtquDSpexcMtSVjm7ay_Mn7a5e-N4yIc$
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2022-November/499306.html__;!!OOPJP91ZZw!ltyK0RA-1Vj1dgI1cBlgG1bJOhuZ4JGxwGBIl-Nt-hFz0eZTXmQKALvE9wCKtquDSpexcMtSVjm7ay_Mn7a5Y8ANiXk$
>>
>> No, I have not done that. The patches mentioned are additions to a
>> deprecated script!
>>
> 
> I think there's a a possible misunderstanding here. I believe Jerome pointed out that make_fit_atf.py currently supports two formats for the tee binary and is asking if the implementation you're suggesting take care of that.

Yes, and I suspect the answer is no ;)
 
>> It introduces a new binary format which binman needs to decode...

Correct, but this was done to fix an assumption that has never been
true in the first place: that OP-TEE's tee.elf file could be used
by bootloaders as the TEE image. It happened to work in the past and it
may still work depending on config options, but as described in [1],
the introduction of ASLR broke that assumption. Here I am speaking only
for OP-TEE, other TEEs may very well be supplied as ELF files of course.

[1] 348310233dac ("mach-rockchip: make_fit_atf.py: support OP-TEE tee.bin v1
format")

>> that
>> will need to be added as a new type, I think, since it seems to use
>> the filename suffix to decide what format it is in.

The suffix is a quick way to tell formats apart but some more precise
detection code could be used instead if needed (telling if a file is ELF
or is OP-TEE .bin can done by looking at the header). Or perhaps this
information should be provided by the user?
 
> If my aforementioned assumption is correct, that unfortunately would make this patch series a regression, making it a blocker.

Agreed. Unfortunately I am not familiar *at all* with binman (or u-boot
in general), so I am not sure how I can help other than with testing. Or
maybe someone can propose some rough patch and I would insert the missing
bits? (i.e., parsing the OP-TEE header).

Thanks,
-- 
Jerome