From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com (fllv0015.ext.ti.com [198.47.19.141]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web09.634.1618507774536417964 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:29:34 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@ti.com header.s=ti-com-17q1 header.b=J/8B8ZzE; spf=pass (domain: ti.com, ip: 198.47.19.141, mailfrom: nm@ti.com) Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 13FHTXr1032341; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:29:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1618507773; bh=l670DXH2cqMiZTMOTmxL9o1xguv2ygK5O7L8rQi/uLA=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=J/8B8ZzEKJx7ivOHP4BK5KrEh7GuTsOHpGwJZMSFoLhDvyVdBQ1e+/RPZqFfuROyj YpbSBcJdAVlvOFdfMUyYRL69iFy4qrWHMrC9SUuEPYgqiiJNklHDDuJpg4fPlBEaKw avLyJkPhps5N92enR+1cOf8ufVAdj/HaFEkEwx1k= Received: from DFLE113.ent.ti.com (dfle113.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.34]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13FHTWH5117652 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:29:33 -0500 Received: from DFLE113.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.34) by DFLE113.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:29:32 -0500 Received: from fllv0039.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.19) by DFLE113.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:29:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0039.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 13FHTWYi023075; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:29:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:29:32 -0500 From: "Nishanth Menon" To: Sinthu Raja M CC: , Praneeth Bajjuri Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [dunfell/master PATCH 3/3] AM64x Unification: Update ti-sci-fw recipe Message-ID: <20210415172932.2b46s3imaf5adc5x@subpanel> References: <20210408071654.63212-1-sinthu.raja@mistral.in> <20210408134409.u24qdeiindwia2hl@paralyses> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline On 22:46-20210415, Sinthu Raja M wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 7:14 PM Nishanth Menon wrote: > > > > On 12:46-20210408, Sinthu Raja M via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > From: Sinthu Raja > > > > > > Updtae ti-sci-fw recipe to build for both SK and EVM compilation and > > s/Updtae/Update/ > > > > > installation through one machine name > > > > > > Why are we doing this? What happens to the wic file image? What is the > > out of box experience for someone creating an SD image -> flash the > > image then modify the sd card? how would that help? > > > The AM64x EVM and SK have similar rootfs, kernel and u-boot source > except for R5 SPL where EVM and SK have two different DDR > configurations. > Two different processor SDK for EVM and SK creates overhead for > customers just for the change in tiboot3.bin. Two avoid the overhead, > we are creating two > different images for EVM and SK under one MACHINE_NAME (which is am64xx-evm) > > Two WIC files will be available separately for EVM and SK in the > processor SDK installer. Users can use respective WIC files for > flashing on to the respective boards. since meta-yocto, meta-arago etc use the same meta-ti layer, Could you explain how, in meta-arago/meta-ti am I generating two different wic files with the current patch series? I am probably missing some nuance in your patches.. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D