[PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: imx: imx8mn-evk: generate a single bootable flash.bin

[Heiko Thiery]

Hi Alper

Am Mi., 22. Juni 2022 um 20:18 Uhr schrieb Alper Nebi Yasak
<alpernebiyasak at gmail.com>:
>
> On 09/06/2022 23:49, Heiko Thiery wrote:
> > To have a flash.bin file that also contains the U-Boot and TF-A/ATF
> > create this like already done for other imx8 boards.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Thiery <heiko.thiery at gmail.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Fabio Estevam <festevam at gmail.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
> > ---
> > v2: sync with current master and fix merge conflict
> >
> >  arch/arm/dts/imx8mn-evk-u-boot.dtsi | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imx8mn-evk-u-boot.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mn-evk-u-boot.dtsi
> > index 3db46d4cbc..d1427941eb 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/dts/imx8mn-evk-u-boot.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mn-evk-u-boot.dtsi
> > @@ -58,7 +58,9 @@
> >       };
> >
> >
> > -     flash {
> > +     spl {
> > +             filename = "spl.bin";
> > +
> >               mkimage {
> >                       args = "-n spl/u-boot-spl.cfgout -T imx8mimage -e 0x912000";
> >
>
> This change got applied in the meantime via another patch [1].

ok

>
> [1] imx8mn_evk: Add the missing spl.bin entry
> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20220503190304.413968-1-festevam@gmail.com/
>
> > @@ -125,4 +127,19 @@
> >                       };
> >               };
> >       };
> > +
> > +     imx-boot {
> > +             filename = "flash.bin";
> > +             pad-byte = <0x00>;
> > +
> > +             spl: blob-ext at 1 {
> > +                     offset = <0x0>;
> > +                     filename = "spl.bin";
> > +             };
> > +
> > +             uboot: blob-ext at 2 {
> > +                     offset = <0x58000>;
> > +                     filename = "u-boot.itb";
> > +             };
> > +     };
> >  };
>
> This is already inherited from an #included dtsi, so not strictly
> necessary. I think it would be clearer to include this here as well, but
> since you're removing it in the next patch anyway you can drop this
> patch entirely.

You're right. This is not required. Therefore I set the state to
rejected in patchwork.

Thanks
Heiko