[PATCH v2] mkimage: allow zynqmpbif to use a register initialization file

[Michal Simek]

On 6/11/26 16:09, Erich E. Hoover wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 5:31 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek at amd.com> wrote:
>> On 6/5/26 15:57, Erich E. Hoover wrote:
>>> ...
>>> options, like so:
>>> ===
>>> image : {
>>>        [init] fsbl.int
>>
>> please use different name then fsbl because fsbl is not doing this programming.
>> That's done by bootrom itself.
>>
>> Topic board is defining it like this.
>> board/topic/zynq/zynq-topic-miamiplus/ps7_regs.txt
>> but that's for zynq
> 
> My apologies, maybe "reginit.int" like the example for the Versal in
> UG1283?  I'll remove this line as well, since that's more specific to
> what we're doing:
> [destination_cpu=none] fsbl.tcl

definitely not fsbl.
reginit.int name is fine.


> 
>> Actually I think would be good to recap format because origin format
>> is different compare to what it is used by bootgen right now.
>>
>> https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/ug1283-bootgen-user-guide/Initialization-Pairs-and-INT-File-Attribute
>> ...
> 
> Are you suggesting adding an additional comment to the commit akin to
> "This currently uses the same register initialization file format as
> zynqmpimage (ASCII text hex values with each line composed of a pair
> of register address and value) and is not yet compatible with the
> format used by bootgen."?

Description is fine I would put it as example like this.

0xff003248 0x12345678


>>>    static const struct bif_flags bif_flags[] = {
>>> +     { "init", BIF_FLAG_INIT },
>>>        { "fsbl_config", BIF_FLAG_FSBL_CONFIG },
>>>        { "trustzone", BIF_FLAG_TZ },
>>>        { "pmufw_image", BIF_FLAG_PMUFW_IMAGE },
>>> @@ -279,7 +280,7 @@ static int bif_add_blob(const void *data, size_t len, size_t *offset)
>>>        return 0;
>>>    }
>>>
>>> -static int bif_init(void)
>>> +static int bif_initialize(void)
>>
>> What's the reason for this rename? I don't think you should rename it because it
>> is just distracting.
> 
> I was trying to match nearby behavior with other flags
> ("bif_fsbl_config" as an example).  How about I change the new
> function to "bif_add_reginit" (similar to bif_add_pmufw instead)?

If you want to change names to be aligned, do it in separate patch with own 
description. And no issue with it.

> 
>> Anyway I have tested this patch and output looks reasonable. I would obviously
>> prefer to add more features there (like ignoring comments) or unify the format
>> but that's out of the purpose of this patch.
> 
> I would be happy to add some more features to this, would you like
> patches for this added as part of a series or submitted separately?

It can be done separately and I think it would be better for you too.

Thanks,
Michal