[PATCH v5 00/10] Add PCIe Boot support for TI J784S4 SoC

[Siddharth Vadapalli]

On 05/03/26 11:27, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
> On 05/03/26 00:21, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 03:58:28PM +0530, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This series adds PCIe endpoint boot support for the TI J784S4 SoC.
>>> Series is based on commit
>>> f9ffeec4bdc board: toradex: Make A53 get RAM size from DT in K3 boards
>>> of the master branch of U-Boot.
>>>
>>> v4 of this series is at:
>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/ 
>>> cover/20251201110103.845413-1-h-salunke at ti.com/
>>> Changes since v4:
>>> - Addressed Udit's feedback:
>>>    i) Patch 6 has been updated by limiting changes to disabling 
>>> CONFIG_SPL_PCI_ENDPOINT
>>>       and CONFIG_SPL_PHY (CONFIG_PCIE_CDNS_TI_EP, 
>>> CONFIG_SPL_PHY_CADENCE_TORRENT and
>>>       CONFIG_SPL_PHY_J721E_WIZ don't need to be disabled as pointed out 
>>> by Udit).
>>>    ii) Commit message of patch 8 has been updated to indicate that 
>>> although PCIe Boot
>>>        is supported in Hardware for J742S2 SoC, it is not yet enabled in 
>>> Software.
>>>    iii) Documentation in patch 10 has been updated with complete set of 
>>> device-tree
>>>         changes included and the C Program to transfer bootloaders has 
>>> also been
>>>         simplified and documented with the usage of appropriate variable 
>>> names.
>>>
>>> PCIe Boot Logs (J784S4-EVM running Linux as Root-Complex transfers
>>> bootloaders to another J784S4-EVM configured for PCIe Boot):
>>> https://gist.github.com/Siddharth-Vadapalli-at- 
>>> TI/2d157003818441fe79a139d0dec1058a
>>
>> With current next this introduces a failure to build on j784s4_evm_a72.
> It builds for me without any issues. I have checkout out to next:
> c0ca147ac62 Merge tag 'u-boot-imx-next-20260228' of https://gitlab.denx.de/ 
> u-boot/custodians/u-boot-imx into next
> and don't see any issues when building A72 SPL / U-Boot proper for J784S4.
> 
> Could you please share the build error that you are observing? Or is it a 
> warning being treated as an error?
To fix the warning associated with 'subclass_code', I have posted the 
following patch:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20260305103815.999886-1-s-vadapalli@ti.com/

Assuming that the above is the fix for the same build failure that you were 
referring to, please let me know if the fix can be taken along with this 
series.

Regards,
Siddharth.