Hi Hari, %s/AM46x/AM64x/ Also, no need to add v1 for the first versions, you only need it on subsequent revisions. %s/R4FSS0/M4FSS0/ ou have the variable name correct here. Makes me wonder if this pat

This should still be r2 right.. regards Suman

Hi Yogesh, I am guessing you will be moving away from overloading this recipe for next release, and will do this cleanly. Hmm, I am actually not sure if these are actually baremetal firmwares. We orig

Not for this commit SHA. The am64x config consolidation happened with the latest commit a6e78929575b6969c15ced9685441fc430ee9510 regards Suman

Reviewed-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...>

Hi Praneeth, I guess you are redoing this patch to reflect the latest tagged kernel commit SHAs? regards Suman

Hi Praneeth, Sorry, realized that my patches fixed the issue only for K2 builds originally, and I had a bug that fails the builds for non-K2 platforms. I have since fixed those, so please update use 4

Reviewed-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...> regards Suman

Reviewed-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...> regards Suman

Reviewed-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...> regards Suman

Hi Praneeth, FWIW, keystone-k2g-ice.dtb is not an overlay, and is present even on upstream kernel. Why are you removing this? regards Suman

Hmm, 07.03.00.001?

Hi Dan, The patch you merged [1] doesn't exactly match this. The one you pushed still has the following line set in u-boot-ti.inc PACKAGECONFIG_append_am64xx = " dm" regards Suman [1] http://arago-pro

Reviewed-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...>

Hi Dan, I see J7200 has two additional lines w.r.t trusted-firmware-a:do_deploy, do we not need those lines for AM64xx or are they in error even on J7200? This looks wrong, AM64xx doesn't have Split S

Hi Praneeth, Would prefer some meaningful commit message. Would be nice to see the upgrade information of SYSFW 2020.12 for AM64x in the patch. regards Suman

Hi Praneeth, This by itself will not be enough for AM64, but that can be an add-on patch. Need to account for TARGET_BOARD=lite for AM64x. regards Suman

I believe this should be am64x, atleast thats the name used in the metadata.inc files. Did you submit the wrong patch? I see this as /am64x on the -next branch, which is correct. regards Suman

Why do we need this? I don't see any for AM65xx. regards Suman

You can probably merge this patch first in preparation. Also, the SHA is already stale, might just pick the latest, even 5.4.82.. regards Suman