[PATCH v2 5/8] binman: android_boot: SEANDROIDENFORCE support

[Sam Day]

Ahoy Simon,

On Monday, 8 June 2026 at 11:27 PM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi Sam,
> 
> On 2026-06-07T23:37:09, Sam Day via B4 Relay
> <devnull+me.samcday.com at kernel.org> wrote:
> > binman: android_boot: SEANDROIDENFORCE support
> >
> > Some older MSM8916-era bootloaders want to see this string appended to
> > the abootimg, or they log an ugly warning to the screen.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sam Day <me at samcday.com>
> >
> > tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py                 | 11 +++++++++++
> >  tools/binman/ftest.py                              |  6 ++++++
> >  .../test/vendor/android_boot_seandroidenforce.dts  | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py b/tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py
> > @@ -55,6 +57,7 @@ class Entry_android_boot(Entry_section):
> >          - os-version: Encoded Android OS version and patch level, defaults to 0
> >          - boot-name: Android boot image board name
> >          - cmdline: Android boot command line
> > +        - append-seandroid-enforce: Append Samsung SEANDROIDENFORCE trailer,
> 
> Calling this 'Samsung' is misleading given the commit message
> attributes it to MSM8916-era bootloaders - perhaps 'Append the
> SEANDROIDENFORCE trailer expected by some MSM8916/Samsung
> bootloaders'.
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py b/tools/binman/etype/android_boot.py
> > @@ -174,6 +180,9 @@ class Entry_android_boot(Entry_section):
> >                  self.Raise('page-size must fit the Android boot image header')
> >              if 'dtb' not in self._entries:
> >                  self.Raise("Missing required subnode 'dtb'")
> > +            if self.append_seandroid:
> > +                self.Raise("Property 'append-seandroid-enforce' requires "
> > +                           "header-version 0")
> 
> Just to check, is this a hard restriction of the format, or only a
> reflection of which bootloaders are known to want this trailer? If v2
> images can legitimately carry it too, it would be more flexible to
> allow it. If it really is invalid, please add a short note in the
> commit message saying why.
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/binman/ftest.py b/tools/binman/ftest.py
> > @@ -5673,6 +5673,12 @@ fdt         fdtmap                Extract the devicetree blob from the fdtmap
> > +    def testAndroidBootSeAndroidEnforce(self):
> > +        """Test that binman appends SEANDROIDENFORCE"""
> > +        data = self._DoReadFile('vendor/android_boot_seandroidenforce.dts')
> > +
> > +        self.assertEqual(b'SEANDROIDENFORCE', data[-16:])
> 
> Please add a negative test for the v2 + append-seandroid-enforce
> combination, to lock in the Raise(). It would also be worth asserting
> the rest of the image (header, kernel page, ramdisk page) is intact,
> so a regression that truncates the body but leaves the trailer in
> place would still be caught.

I've since realized that this entire patch is unnecessary, and I've
dropped it from v3. Rather than codifying this, we can just take
advantage of the flexibility binman already offers through the
section etype, in conjunction with the text etype:

binman {
  android_boot { ... };
  text { text = "SEANDROIDENFORCE"; };
};

Quite awesome, really :)

Thanks,
-Sam

> 
> Regards,
> Simon
>