[PATCH] arm64: zynqmp: Do not describe u-boot.itb if SPL is disabled

[Michal Simek]

On 3/12/24 20:12, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 17:55, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/12/24 07:14, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
>>> Hi Michal
>>>
>>> Apologies for the late reply
>>>
>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 09:48, Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/5/24 16:47, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>>> There is no reason to describe u-boot.itb on system without SPL. Pretty
>>>>>> much this is cover all systems which are using only boot.bin which contains
>>>>>> all images inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     board/xilinx/common/board.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/board/xilinx/common/board.c b/board/xilinx/common/board.c
>>>>>> index 9641ed307b75..4f38b7d27684 100644
>>>>>> --- a/board/xilinx/common/board.c
>>>>>> +++ b/board/xilinx/common/board.c
>>>>>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = {
>>>>>>                .image_index = 1,
>>>>>>        },
>>>>>>     #endif
>>>>>> -#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID)
>>>>>> +#if defined(XILINX_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME)
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens if this is defined with CONFIG_SPL_FS_LOAD_PAYLOAD_NAME="" ?
>>>>
>>>> Your comment is valid but I am not aware about any CONFIG_IS, etc which checks
>>>> that string is not empty. If name is "" it will return yes and second image is
>>>> doing to be defined.
>>>>
>>>> But I found handling in the code like this.
>>>>
>>>>     36 #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE
>>>>     37                 if (strlen(CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE)) {
>>>>
>>>> which can be used in my second patch not to describe second image in
>>>> set_dfu_alt_info() if string is empty.
>>>
>>> Yes, I think that's ok. The problem is that if we merge this as-is, we
>>> would have to disable CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT to make this work, which is a
>>> bit misleading
>>
>> As Heinrich said not just this if you want to do it like this.
>> I think you will simply disable the whole SPL which will disable this symbol too.
>> But from my perspective SPL payload name is driving this option. Data can end up
>> on partition or in raw mode but for dfu you need to use the name.
> 
> Yes, but isn't SPL selected by the Kconfig automatically? I can't seem
> to be able to disable it for the kria platforms

Not in upstream but via your/AMD build in meta-ts.

Thanks,
Michal