[PATCHv2 4/5] fwu: DeveloperBox: add support for FWU

[Ilias Apalodimas]

Hi Jassi,

On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 16:40, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 6:04 AM AKASHI Takahiro
> <takahiro.akashi at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > > diff --git a/board/socionext/developerbox/developerbox.c b/board/socionext/developerbox/developerbox.c
> > > index f5a5fe0121..a0db26eaf3 100644
> > > --- a/board/socionext/developerbox/developerbox.c
> > > +++ b/board/socionext/developerbox/developerbox.c
> > > @@ -20,6 +20,13 @@
> > >
> > >  #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(EFI_HAVE_CAPSULE_SUPPORT)
> > >  struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = {
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_FWU_MULTI_BANK_UPDATE)
> > > +     {
> > > +             .image_type_id = DEVELOPERBOX_FIP_IMAGE_GUID,
> > > +             .fw_name = u"DEVELOPERBOX-FIP",
> > > +             .image_index = 1,
> > > +     },
> > > +#else
> >
> > From curiosity, why do you want to use different capsule formats
> > for multi-bank update and normal case?
> >
> normal/legacy layout has one image for each component - uboot, tfa and
> optee, whereas the new layout contains everything in one fip image.
> So I thought it would be better to make the image_index consistent by
> making the fip's as 1.

FWIW this does make a lot of sense.  Since the SCP firmware is not
included in the capsule and that SCP firmware is needed to transition
from old -> new layout, I think we are better off having those in
different GUIDs.  On top of that those GUIDs can be used in LVFS if we
ever decide to upload firmwares there.

Not having discrete GUIDs means there's a chance to brick the board on
old -> new update,  unless the SCP is explicitly updated.

Cheers
/Ilias
>
> cheers.