[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] boot: aml-s905x-cc-fip: new package for Libre Computer AML-S905X-CC boot firmwares

Neil Armstrong narmstrong at baylibre.com
Thu Sep 20 09:23:30 UTC 2018


Hi,

On 09/08/2018 23:09, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Thanks for this new proposal. However, I still have some concerns about
> it :-/

Thanks, sorry for the delayed answer....

> 
> On Mon,  6 Aug 2018 08:50:07 +0000, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/boot/Config.in b/boot/Config.in
>> index 3687c41..a0d897f 100644
>> --- a/boot/Config.in
>> +++ b/boot/Config.in
>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ source "boot/afboot-stm32/Config.in"
>>  source "boot/at91bootstrap/Config.in"
>>  source "boot/at91bootstrap3/Config.in"
>>  source "boot/at91dataflashboot/Config.in"
>> +source "boot/aml-s905x-cc-fip/Config.in"
> 
> Alphabetic ordering is not good.

Ok

> 
>> +	  Amlogic FIP boot firmwares for AML-S905X-CC
> 
> Is this package specific to a board ? to a SoC ?

To a board, it contains code loaded in SCP co-processor to handle the CPU power rails.

> 
>> diff --git a/boot/aml-s905x-cc-fip/aml-s905x-cc-fip.mk b/boot/aml-s905x-cc-fip/aml-s905x-cc-fip.mk
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..7aa6af9
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/boot/aml-s905x-cc-fip/aml-s905x-cc-fip.mk
>> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
>> +################################################################################
>> +#
>> +# aml-s905x-cc-fip
>> +#
>> +################################################################################
>> +
>> +AML_S905X_CC_FIP_VERSION = 20170606
>> +AML_S905X_CC_FIP_SOURCE = libretech-cc_fip_$(AML_S905X_CC_FIP_VERSION).tar.gz
>> +AML_S905X_CC_FIP_SITE = https://github.com/BayLibre/u-boot/releases/download/v2017.11-libretech-cc
>> +AML_S905X_CC_FIP_LICENSE = Amlogic
> 
> "Amlogic" is not a license. We need a proper license, that at least
> gives the right to redistribute those binaries. Without a license,
> nobody is allowed to redistribute those binaries, making them pretty
> useless.

Yes, it's an issue we need to handle, we are in the process to discuss an EULA for that.

> 
>> +define AML_S905X_CC_FIP_INSTALL_IMAGES_CMDS
>> +	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0644 $(@D)/gxl/bl2.bin $(BINARIES_DIR)/fip/bl2.bin
>> +	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0644 $(@D)/gxl/acs.bin $(BINARIES_DIR)/fip/acs.bin
>> +	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0644 $(@D)/gxl/bl21.bin $(BINARIES_DIR)/fip/bl21.bin
>> +	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0644 $(@D)/gxl/bl30.bin $(BINARIES_DIR)/fip/bl30.bin
>> +	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0644 $(@D)/gxl/bl301.bin $(BINARIES_DIR)/fip/bl301.bin
>> +	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0644 $(@D)/gxl/bl31.img $(BINARIES_DIR)/fip/bl31.img
>> +	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/gxl/aml_encrypt_gxl $(BINARIES_DIR)/fip/aml_encrypt_gxl
>> +	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0755 $(@D)/blx_fix.sh $(BINARIES_DIR)/fip/blx_fix.sh
>> +	$(INSTALL) -D -m 0644 $(@D)/acs_tool.pyc $(BINARIES_DIR)/fip/acs_tool.pyc
> 
> These last three files are host programs, they should be installed to
> $(HOST_DIR).
> 
> However:
> 
>  - aml_encrypt_gxl is a prebuilt binary for x86-64. This means this
>    package should depend on host arch being x86-64:
> 
>    depends on BR2_HOSTARCH = "x86_64"
> 
>    You really don't have the source code for this tool ? It would be
>    much easier.

I would loved to...

> 
>  - acs_tool.pyc is byte-compiled. You also don't have the source code
>    here ? I'm not sure how much Python bytecode is compatible between
>    Python versions. The bytecode you have has been built with Python
>    2.7. Does it work with Python 2.6 ? Python 3.x ?

I would also loved to have the source of this.

> 
> Also, perhaps we should do like arm-trusted-firmware: make this package
> depend on u-boot, and then include all the complicated firmware
> generation logic inside aml-s905x-cc instead of having it in a
> post-image script.

Makes sense.

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Thomas
> 

Thanks for the review,

Until we have a clear EULA I will drop U-boot support.

Neil



More information about the buildroot mailing list