| Message ID | 20240509164123.1753050-16-j-humphreys@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Ilias Apalodimas |
| Headers | show |
| Series | EFI: ti: Enable EFI capsule updates | expand |
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@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) > + { > + .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
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@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@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(). 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
Hi Jon, On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 18:38, Jon Humphreys <j-humphreys@ti.com> wrote: > > Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@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@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
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> writes: > Hi Jon, > > On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 18:38, Jon Humphreys <j-humphreys@ti.com> wrote: >> >> Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@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@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 > Are you referring to set_dfu_alt_info() which is guarded by CONFIG_SET_DFU_ALT_INFO? If so, that is separate but I can add a CONFIG_SET_DFU_ALT_INFO guard around the definition, for now. But IMO it is a bit of a mess because it's use and board specific defs are guarded by CONFIG_SET_DFU_ALT_INFO but the weak/default definition is guarded by CONFIG_EFI_CAPSULE_FIRMWARE, which causes problems because the configs are not always the same for all builds. I was wanting to fix that too so I might do that as a separate patch and make that patch a prerequisite for this series, which then allows me to remove the definitions of set_dfu_alt_info() in this series. Jon > 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
On Fri, 31 May 2024 at 07:10, Jon Humphreys <j-humphreys@ti.com> wrote: > > Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> writes: > > > Hi Jon, > > > > On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 18:38, Jon Humphreys <j-humphreys@ti.com> wrote: > >> > >> Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@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@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 > > > > Are you referring to set_dfu_alt_info() which is guarded by > CONFIG_SET_DFU_ALT_INFO? Yes > > If so, that is separate but I can add a CONFIG_SET_DFU_ALT_INFO guard > around the definition, for now. But IMO it is a bit of a mess because it's > use and board specific defs are guarded by CONFIG_SET_DFU_ALT_INFO but the > weak/default definition is guarded by CONFIG_EFI_CAPSULE_FIRMWARE, which > causes problems because the configs are not always the same for all builds. Indeed > I was wanting to fix that too so I might do that as a separate patch and > make that patch a prerequisite for this series, which then allows me to > remove the definitions of set_dfu_alt_info() in this series. > We can clean it up later sure, but for now put it under an IS_ENABLED so we have the same mess everywhere :) Thanks /Ilias > Jon > > > 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
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[] = { + { + .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, +}; + +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); +} + 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 +/** + * define AM62PX_SK_TIBOOT3_IMAGE_GUID - firmware GUID for AM62PX sk tiboot3.bin + * define AM62PX_SK_SPL_IMAGE_GUID - firmware GUID for AM62PX sk SPL + * define AM62PX_SK_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID - firmware GUID for AM62PX sk UBOOT + * + * These GUIDs are used in capsules updates to identify the corresponding + * firmware object. + * + * Board developers using this as a starting reference should + * define their own GUIDs to ensure that firmware repositories (like + * LVFS) do not confuse them. + */ +#define AM62PX_SK_TIBOOT3_IMAGE_GUID \ + EFI_GUID(0xb08471b7, 0xbe2d, 0x4489, 0x87, 0xa1, \ + 0xca, 0xb2, 0x8a, 0x0c, 0xf7, 0x43) + +#define AM62PX_SK_SPL_IMAGE_GUID \ + EFI_GUID(0xd02ed781, 0x6d71, 0x4c1a, 0xa9, 0x99, \ + 0x3c, 0x6a, 0x41, 0xc3, 0x63, 0x24) + +#define AM62PX_SK_UBOOT_IMAGE_GUID \ + EFI_GUID(0x7e6aea51, 0x965c, 0x44ab, 0xb3, 0x88, \ + 0xda, 0xeb, 0x03, 0xb5, 0x4f, 0x66) + /* Now for the remaining common defines */ #include <configs/ti_armv7_common.h>
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@ti.com> --- board/ti/am62px/evm.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/configs/am62px_evm.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+)