[PATCH v4 15/19] board: am62px: Define capsule update firmware info

[Ilias Apalodimas]

Hi Jon,

On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 18:38, Jon Humphreys <j-humphreys at ti.com> wrote:
>
> Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> writes:
>
> > Hi Jonathan
> >
> > Thanks for working on this
> >
> > On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 11:41:19AM -0500, Jonathan Humphreys wrote:
> >> Define the firmware components updatable via EFI capsule update, including
> >> defining capsule GUIDs for the various firmware components for the AM62px
> >> SK.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Humphreys <j-humphreys at ti.com>
> >> ---
> >>  board/ti/am62px/evm.c        | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  include/configs/am62px_evm.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/board/ti/am62px/evm.c b/board/ti/am62px/evm.c
> >> index 97a95ce8cc2..6d0f66e5dc0 100644
> >> --- a/board/ti/am62px/evm.c
> >> +++ b/board/ti/am62px/evm.c
> >> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> >>   *
> >>   */
> >>
> >> +#include <efi_loader.h>
> >>  #include <asm/arch/hardware.h>
> >>  #include <asm/io.h>
> >>  #include <dm/uclass.h>
> >> @@ -13,6 +14,37 @@
> >>  #include <fdt_support.h>
> >>  #include <spl.h>
> >>
> >> +struct efi_fw_image fw_images[] = {
> >
> > It's better if we add an
> > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI_HAVE_CAPSULE_SUPPORT)
> > for both of the structs that follow (and it applies to all your patches)
> >
>
> Ilias, thanks for the reviews.
>
> I had this protected in #if's in an earlier patch set, as you suggest here.
> However, in those reviews, Roger recommended that we don't do that and put
> conditions around the use of it in set_dfu_alt_info().
>

Hmm but the function prototype itself is on an ifdef. If you want to
remove the ifdef you got to do it everywhere

Thanks
/Ilias

> https://lore.kernel.org/all/b19f02e0-a80a-46d6-8296-5d516577766a@kernel.org/
>
> I assume the reasoning is to reduce #if's in the code and rely on the
> compiler to be smart enough to remove dead data. (Roger, speak up if I
> misrepresent you.)
>
> I'm ok to do either way.  What is the preferred way in U-Boot?
>
> Thanks
> Jon
>
> >> +    {
> >> +            .image_type_id = AM62PX_SK_TIBOOT3_IMAGE_GUID,
> >> +            .fw_name = u"AM62PX_SK_TIBOOT3",
> >> +            .image_index = 1,
> >> +    },
> >> +    {
> >> +            .image_type_id = AM62PX_SK_SPL_IMAGE_GUID,
> >> +            .fw_name = u"AM62PX_SK_SPL",
> >> +            .image_index = 2,
> >> +    },
> >> +    {
> >> +            .image_type_id = AM62PX_SK_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID,
> >> +            .fw_name = u"AM62PX_SK_UBOOT",
> >> +            .image_index = 3,
> >> +    }
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +struct efi_capsule_update_info update_info = {
> >> +    .dfu_string = "sf 0:0=tiboot3.bin raw 0 80000;"
> >> +    "tispl.bin raw 80000 200000;u-boot.img raw 280000 400000",
> >> +    .num_images = ARRAY_SIZE(fw_images),
> >> +    .images = fw_images,
> >> +};
> >
> > I haven't worked on any TI platforms lately so I cant say much about the
> > naming and the flash regions. The definition seems correct
> >
> >
> >> +
> >> +void set_dfu_alt_info(char *interface, char *devstr)
> >> +{
> >> +    if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI_HAVE_CAPSULE_SUPPORT))
> >> +            env_set("dfu_alt_info", update_info.dfu_string);
> >> +}
> >
> > There's a CONFIG_SET_DFU_ALT_INFO symbol. This better if we add a check here
> > as well
> >
> >> +
> >>  int board_init(void)
> >>  {
> >>      return 0;
> >> diff --git a/include/configs/am62px_evm.h b/include/configs/am62px_evm.h
> >> index 06b12860e21..57a1ba9dc3c 100644
> >> --- a/include/configs/am62px_evm.h
> >> +++ b/include/configs/am62px_evm.h
> >> @@ -8,6 +8,30 @@
> >>  #ifndef __CONFIG_AM62PX_EVM_H
> >>  #define __CONFIG_AM62PX_EVM_H
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> > Regards
> > /Ilias