* uboot FIT signature difference
@ 2021-10-10 17:51 Frank Wunderlich
2021-10-24 19:53 ` Simon Glass
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Frank Wunderlich @ 2021-10-10 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Glass, Philipp Tomsich, Kever Yang; +Cc: u-boot
Hi,
i try to create a upstream uboot binary for use with rockchip rk3568 (bananapi r2 pro). Currently i'm on preparation phase as i don't have the hardware yet (so i cannot test it).
First thanks to everybody upstreamed support for this SOC in uboot and linux.
i found a compiled uboot.img with this signature:
FIT Image with ATF/OP-TEE/U-Boot
my created itb (make u-boot.itb) has this signature:
FIT image for U-Boot with bl31 (TF-A)
can anybody give me a hint how to create same signature as above? or where i have to look...
i guess the uboot.img is created using this source:
https://github.com/rockchip-linux/u-boot
as far as i see the itb gets generated from the dtb
OBJCOPY u-boot-nodtb.bin
./"arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py" \
arch/arm/dts/rk3568-evb.dtb > u-boot.its
RELOC u-boot-nodtb.bin
MKIMAGE u-boot.itb
op-tee seems to be a lib only in rockchip repo, not upstream
https://github.com/rockchip-linux/u-boot/tree/next-dev/lib/optee_clientApi
seems to be some kind of secure boot, idk if this is needed to boot the device
i wonder why uboot differentiate between ATF and BL31...imho BL31 is part of ATF, do i need all parts of ATF (at least BL2) to get same signature? i have some rk3568_ddr_xxxxMHz_v1.08.bin which can be BL2 (did not found any signature and Rockchip ATF source is afaik not yet released, at least not for rk35xx which is new).
"my" source is this:
https://github.com/frank-w/u-boot/tree/2021-10-bpi-r2-pro
regards Frank
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: uboot FIT signature difference
2021-10-10 17:51 uboot FIT signature difference Frank Wunderlich
@ 2021-10-24 19:53 ` Simon Glass
2021-10-25 17:59 ` Aw: " Frank Wunderlich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Simon Glass @ 2021-10-24 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Frank Wunderlich; +Cc: Philipp Tomsich, Kever Yang, U-Boot Mailing List
Hi Frank,
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 at 11:51, Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@public-files.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> i try to create a upstream uboot binary for use with rockchip rk3568 (bananapi r2 pro). Currently i'm on preparation phase as i don't have the hardware yet (so i cannot test it).
>
> First thanks to everybody upstreamed support for this SOC in uboot and linux.
>
> i found a compiled uboot.img with this signature:
>
> FIT Image with ATF/OP-TEE/U-Boot
>
> my created itb (make u-boot.itb) has this signature:
>
> FIT image for U-Boot with bl31 (TF-A)
>
> can anybody give me a hint how to create same signature as above? or where i have to look...
As far as I know this is just the description, which you can change by
updating the 'description' of your .its file, or binman node if you
are using that.
>
> i guess the uboot.img is created using this source:
> https://github.com/rockchip-linux/u-boot
>
> as far as i see the itb gets generated from the dtb
>
> OBJCOPY u-boot-nodtb.bin
> ./"arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py" \
> arch/arm/dts/rk3568-evb.dtb > u-boot.its
> RELOC u-boot-nodtb.bin
> MKIMAGE u-boot.itb
>
> op-tee seems to be a lib only in rockchip repo, not upstream
>
> https://github.com/rockchip-linux/u-boot/tree/next-dev/lib/optee_clientApi
>
> seems to be some kind of secure boot, idk if this is needed to boot the device
>
> i wonder why uboot differentiate between ATF and BL31...imho BL31 is part of ATF, do i need all parts of ATF (at least BL2) to get same signature? i have some rk3568_ddr_xxxxMHz_v1.08.bin which can be BL2 (did not found any signature and Rockchip ATF source is afaik not yet released, at least not for rk35xx which is new).
>
> "my" source is this:
>
> https://github.com/frank-w/u-boot/tree/2021-10-bpi-r2-pro
I'm not sure about all these flows. It is all quite complicated these days...
Regards,
Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Aw: Re: uboot FIT signature difference
2021-10-24 19:53 ` Simon Glass
@ 2021-10-25 17:59 ` Frank Wunderlich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Frank Wunderlich @ 2021-10-25 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Glass; +Cc: Philipp Tomsich, Kever Yang, U-Boot Mailing List
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. Oktober 2021 um 21:53 Uhr
> Von: "Simon Glass" <sjg@chromium.org>
> An: "Frank Wunderlich" <frank-w@public-files.de>
> Cc: "Philipp Tomsich" <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>, "Kever Yang" <kever.yang@rock-chips.com>, "U-Boot Mailing List" <u-boot@lists.denx.de>
> Betreff: Re: uboot FIT signature difference
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 at 11:51, Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@public-files.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > i try to create a upstream uboot binary for use with rockchip rk3568 (bananapi r2 pro). Currently i'm on preparation phase as i don't have the hardware yet (so i cannot test it).
> >
> > First thanks to everybody upstreamed support for this SOC in uboot and linux.
> >
> > i found a compiled uboot.img with this signature:
> >
> > FIT Image with ATF/OP-TEE/U-Boot
> >
> > my created itb (make u-boot.itb) has this signature:
> >
> > FIT image for U-Boot with bl31 (TF-A)
> >
> > can anybody give me a hint how to create same signature as above? or where i have to look...
>
> As far as I know this is just the description, which you can change by
> updating the 'description' of your .its file, or binman node if you
> are using that.
Hi,
i found the signature of my binary here:
https://github.com/frank-w/u-boot/blob/2020-10-bpi/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py#L25
string on the possible source of the other binary differs...maybe it is somehow changed
compile-progress seems to be this:
https://gitlab.com/pgwipeout/quartz64_ci/-/blob/main/.gitlab-ci.yml#L58
so it looks like this python-script is used:
https://gitlab.com/pgwipeout/u-boot-rockchip/-/blob/quartz64/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py
but still different...anyway thanks for looking into it
Regards Frank
> > i guess the uboot.img is created using this source:
> > https://github.com/rockchip-linux/u-boot
> >
> > as far as i see the itb gets generated from the dtb
> >
> > OBJCOPY u-boot-nodtb.bin
> > ./"arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py" \
> > arch/arm/dts/rk3568-evb.dtb > u-boot.its
> > RELOC u-boot-nodtb.bin
> > MKIMAGE u-boot.itb
> >
> > op-tee seems to be a lib only in rockchip repo, not upstream
> >
> > https://github.com/rockchip-linux/u-boot/tree/next-dev/lib/optee_clientApi
> >
> > seems to be some kind of secure boot, idk if this is needed to boot the device
> >
> > i wonder why uboot differentiate between ATF and BL31...imho BL31 is part of ATF, do i need all parts of ATF (at least BL2) to get same signature? i have some rk3568_ddr_xxxxMHz_v1.08.bin which can be BL2 (did not found any signature and Rockchip ATF source is afaik not yet released, at least not for rk35xx which is new).
> >
> > "my" source is this:
> >
> > https://github.com/frank-w/u-boot/tree/2021-10-bpi-r2-pro
>
> I'm not sure about all these flows. It is all quite complicated these days...
no worry, i try my binary on the board if i get it ;)
> Regards,
> Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-10-25 17:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-10-10 17:51 uboot FIT signature difference Frank Wunderlich
2021-10-24 19:53 ` Simon Glass
2021-10-25 17:59 ` Aw: " Frank Wunderlich
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.