The patchset fixes some issue in the generation of the imx image
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v2 Latest1 of 7 patches 0 repliesNew
1 of 7 patches is in this archive. The cover letter announces 7.
Patches in v2 No applies recorded yet
| # | Subject and files | Size | Replies | Applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5/7 | tools: add padding of data image file for imximage | +0 | 1 reply |
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v2 yet.
Cover letter [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 0/7] The patchset fixes some issue in the generation of the imx image
Dear Tom Rini,
Quoted 17 lines · Stefano Babic
Quoted 16 lines
Hi Tom,
Quoted 13 lines · Tom Rini
Quoted 11 lines · Stefano Babic
(header for Freescale's i.MX processors) to allow the usage of Freescale's tools to sign the u-boot image and provide a secure boot.
This has nothing to do with the Secure Boot extensions implemented by Simon Glass, that can be in any case used to boot later a secure image. Freescale's secure boot ensures that a signed bootloader is started only if it is verified with a key that is burned into the iMX fuses. Documentation about the Freescale's secure process can be read from the AN4591, available on the Freescale's Website.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Where does Marek's patch fall in here exactly?
Marek's patch is intended to add support for mxs based processor (mx23 / mx28) and it is quite parallel to mine and I think Marek will replace Freescale's own tool elftosb.
But, for clarity, there's not a whole bunch of common code that could be used here, and these i.MXes are different from those i.MXes?
MX23/28 and the rest of IMX use the same "HAB" thing, but due to differences in their bootrom (MXS is sigmatel design, IMX is freescale), it's done differently on both MXS and IMX. Thus we need two implementations :-( IIRC there is HABv3 on IMX and HABv4 on MXS, no ?
Best regards,
Marek Vasut