Research u-boot assets on SECO C61

Description

Look at meta-ts (trusted substrate) integration from Linaro to get C61 boot assets

added to epic &10

set weight to 2

added teamota label

changed milestone to %goofy alpha

changed the description

@sradakovi @mrybczyn to help

changed iteration to Oniro Core Iterations Apr 1, 2022 - Apr 30, 2022

One person from Linaro is now working on it. There is no support of C61 in meta-ts just yet

assigned to @zyga

I'll push this to May. Ideally I'd play with a board locally as this was transformative for my understanding of B68.

changed iteration to Oniro Core Iterations May 1, 2022 - May 31, 2022

added Doing label

marked this issue as related to #80

changed iteration to Oniro Core Iterations Jun 1, 2022 - Jun 30, 2022

changed milestone to %goofy beta

I had a long look at C61 and I've filed #653 (closed) as a follow-up issue on the things I've discovered.

As an extra comment I want to say that I've failed to ever boot this board with SD card. Either the documentation is wrong or (perhaps?) it is just not supported in our configuration.

As for boot assets, given that the board uses u-boot and GRUB, boot assets for GRUB are well-defined and live in the image in the standard location (same as for any x86 board). U-boot boot assets need to be introduced to the image, along with a small re-design of the assets so that we can use multiple boot loaders without clashes (like we originally proposed but did not implement, CC @agherzan). In concrete terms I would propose that usr/lib/sysota/boot-assets is then suffixed with bootloader name: usr/lib/sysota/boot-assets/$bootloader. This way could use things like pi-boot booting u-boot booting linux or u-boot booting grub booting linux without having to cherry-pick files. This will also allow us to have any kind of raw images that may need to be used (e.g. raw partition on /dev/mmcblk0boot{0,1}.

I will take a walk and think about how this can be described without declarative language (so convention over configuration) or if that is a dead end / trap and we should bite the bullet and really configure it explicitly.

closed

removed Doing label