[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] Kconfig: Add u-boot.itb BUILD_TARGET for Rockchip

[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] Kconfig: Add u-boot.itb BUILD_TARGET for Rockchip

[Jagan Teki]

Add u-boot.itb BUILD_TARGET for Rockchip platform when SPL_LOAD_FIT
is being used. This can get rid of building itb explicitly with
'make u-boot.itb' all required images will now build just by make.

Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>
---
Changes for v2:
- build target type 'u-boot.itb' when SPL_LOAD_FIT being used

 Kconfig                                    | 2 +-
 board/rockchip/evb_rk3399/README           | 1 -
 board/theobroma-systems/lion_rk3368/README | 9 ++-------
 board/theobroma-systems/puma_rk3399/README | 1 -
 board/vamrs/rock960_rk3399/README          | 1 -
 5 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Kconfig b/Kconfig
index 15b79259a8..cf175ef33f 100644
--- a/Kconfig
+++ b/Kconfig
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ config BUILD_TARGET
 	default "u-boot-with-spl.sfp" if ARCH_SOCFPGA
 	default "u-boot-spl.kwb" if ARCH_MVEBU && SPL_BUILD
 	default "u-boot-elf.srec" if RCAR_GEN3
-	default "u-boot.itb" if SPL_LOAD_FIT && ARCH_SUNXI
+	default "u-boot.itb" if SPL_LOAD_FIT && (ARCH_ROCKCHIP || ARCH_SUNXI)
 	help
 	  Some SoCs need special image types (e.g. U-Boot binary
 	  with a special header) as build targets. By defining
diff --git a/board/rockchip/evb_rk3399/README b/board/rockchip/evb_rk3399/README
index 8321467046..c388f269c1 100644
--- a/board/rockchip/evb_rk3399/README
+++ b/board/rockchip/evb_rk3399/README
@@ -58,7 +58,6 @@ Compile the U-Boot
   for firefly-rk3399, use below instead:
   > make firefly-rk3399_defconfig
   > make
-  > make u-boot.itb
 
   Get spl/u-boot-spl.bin and u-boot.itb in this step.
 
diff --git a/board/theobroma-systems/lion_rk3368/README b/board/theobroma-systems/lion_rk3368/README
index 83e4332984..241d4d9ec8 100644
--- a/board/theobroma-systems/lion_rk3368/README
+++ b/board/theobroma-systems/lion_rk3368/README
@@ -14,18 +14,13 @@ Configure U-Boot
   > cd ../u-boot
   > make lion-rk3368_defconfig
 
-Build the TPL/SPL stage
-=======================
+Build the TPL/SPL, U-Boot proper and a FIT image including the ATF
+==================================================================
 
   > make CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-unknown-elf- ARCH=arm
   > tools/mkimage -n rk3368 -T rksd -d tpl/u-boot-tpl.bin spl-3368.img
   > cat spl/u-boot-spl-dtb.bin >> spl-3368.img
 
-Build the full U-Boot and a FIT image including the ATF
-=======================================================
-
-  > make CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-unknown-elf- ARCH=arm u-boot.itb
-
 Flash the image
 ===============
 
diff --git a/board/theobroma-systems/puma_rk3399/README b/board/theobroma-systems/puma_rk3399/README
index f67dfb451f..c06c9650b8 100644
--- a/board/theobroma-systems/puma_rk3399/README
+++ b/board/theobroma-systems/puma_rk3399/README
@@ -60,7 +60,6 @@ Creating a SPL image for SD-Card/eMMC
 Creating a SPL image for SPI-NOR
   > tools/mkimage -n rk3399 -T rkspi -d spl/u-boot-spl.bin spl_nor.img
 Create the FIT image containing U-Boot proper, ATF, M0 Firmware, devicetree
-  > make CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- u-boot.itb
 
 Flash the image
 ===============
diff --git a/board/vamrs/rock960_rk3399/README b/board/vamrs/rock960_rk3399/README
index d14399090e..c5c675c4ea 100644
--- a/board/vamrs/rock960_rk3399/README
+++ b/board/vamrs/rock960_rk3399/README
@@ -61,7 +61,6 @@ Compile the U-Boot
   > export CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu-
   > make rock960-rk3399_defconfig
   > make
-  > make u-boot.itb
 
 Compile the rkdeveloptool
 =========================
-- 
2.18.0.321.gffc6fa0e3

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, v2, 2/2] Kconfig: Add u-boot.itb BUILD_TARGET for Rockchip

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:53:41PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:

> Add u-boot.itb BUILD_TARGET for Rockchip platform when SPL_LOAD_FIT
> is being used. This can get rid of building itb explicitly with
> 'make u-boot.itb' all required images will now build just by make.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>

So, we have a problem.  Two actually, but the first is easily fixed.
The first is that in travis, we need python-pyelftools in order for the
python script to run.  The second and harder problem is seen here:
https://travis-ci.org/trini/u-boot/jobs/487680727
where we need to adapt the script to return a success error code and
scream at the end user that the resulting binary is not valid.  We have
this on all the other aarch64 platforms that have a default build target
that requires BL31, etc, and need it on rockchip with this patch.

I'd also really appreciate if someone could look at the N different
wrappers and see if we can't get something more common as it looks like
that for example between i.MX8 and Rockchip we have a lot of common
ground (make a FIT) and then just a binary modification at the end for
rockchip?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190201/3565ce7a/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, v2, 2/2] Kconfig: Add u-boot.itb BUILD_TARGET for Rockchip

[Jagan Teki]

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 9:05 AM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:53:41PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
>
> > Add u-boot.itb BUILD_TARGET for Rockchip platform when SPL_LOAD_FIT
> > is being used. This can get rid of building itb explicitly with
> > 'make u-boot.itb' all required images will now build just by make.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@amarulasolutions.com>
>
> So, we have a problem.  Two actually, but the first is easily fixed.
> The first is that in travis, we need python-pyelftools in order for the

This seems bit crazy, I have included python-pyelftools in packages
seems like travis host cann't find the package, may be some dependency
but as per as I know it has dependency with python.

> python script to run.  The second and harder problem is seen here:
> https://travis-ci.org/trini/u-boot/jobs/487680727
> where we need to adapt the script to return a success error code and
> scream at the end user that the resulting binary is not valid.  We have
> this on all the other aarch64 platforms that have a default build target
> that requires BL31, etc, and need it on rockchip with this patch.
>
> I'd also really appreciate if someone could look at the N different
> wrappers and see if we can't get something more common as it looks like
> that for example between i.MX8 and Rockchip we have a lot of common
> ground (make a FIT) and then just a binary modification at the end for
> rockchip?

Yes, thought off, will send few changes wrt this support.