Hello Jan, 
  
Sorry for the late reply.
 
 >  Why not using the UEFI path, like we have for qemu-arm already? Would be much simpler to add (and likely also to maintain).
 
 I don't have experience on using UEFI. I'll check the current implementation for qemu-arm and will try to use UEFI path for  BBB. I also created issue [1] in isar-cip-core to discuss SWUpdate on BBB.

 > Also, I'm skeptical that your changes didn't break the UEFI integration.
 > Did you test it afterward? 
 
 It is tested only for BBB SWUpdate. I'll check and update the patches such that they shouldn't break UEFI integration.
 
 [1] https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-core/isar-cip-core/-/issues/39 

Thanks & Regards
Shivanand K

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 5:50 PM
To: kunijadar shivanand(ＴＳＩＰ TMIEC ODG Porting) <redacted>; cip-dev@lists.cip-project.org
Cc: dinesh kumar(ＴＳＩＰ TMIEC ODG Porting) <redacted>; hayashi kazuhiro(林 和宏 □ＳＷＣ◯ＡＣＴ) <redacted>
Subject: Re: [isar-cip-core 0/4] SWUpdate on BBB

On 18.08.22 07:04, Shivanand.Kunijadar@toshiba-tsip.com wrote:

From: Shivanand Kunijadar <redacted>

The patches are related to swupdate on BBB using u-boot as bootloader.
I confirmed swupdate on BBB board with all these patches. These 
patches are prepared by referring a branch[1] and patches are 
available at isar-cip-core branch[2].

[1] 
https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-core/isar-cip-core/-/tree/cip-sw-up
dates/swupdate [2] 
https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-core/isar-cip-core/-/tree/shiva/swu
pdate-bbb

Shivanand Kunijadar (4):
  U-Boot: Add custom BBB U-Boot and partitioning
  SWUpdate: add SWUpdate
  customizations: add custom modifications for swupdate
  Added README for BBB swupdate

 conf/machine/bbb.conf                         |  23 ++++-
 doc/README.swupdate.bbb.md                    |  90 ++++++++++++++++++
 recipes-bsp/u-boot-bbb/files/boot-bbb.scr.in  |  79 +++++++++++++++
 recipes-bsp/u-boot-bbb/files/fw_env.config    |   1 +
 recipes-bsp/u-boot-bbb/files/ubootenv-bbb     | Bin 0 -> 131072 bytes
 recipes-bsp/u-boot-bbb/u-boot-bbb_2022.05.bb  |  59 ++++++++++++
 recipes-core/customizations/common.inc        |   5 +-
 recipes-core/customizations/files/interfaces  |   6 ++
 recipes-core/images/cip-core-image.bb         |   9 ++
 recipes-core/images/files/sw-description.tmpl |  15 +--
 recipes-core/images/swupdate.inc              |   7 +-
 .../files/swupdate.handler.u-boot.ini         |  26 +++++
 wic/bbb-u-boot.wks.in                         |  13 +++
 13 files changed, 315 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)  create mode 
100644 doc/README.swupdate.bbb.md  create mode 100644 
recipes-bsp/u-boot-bbb/files/boot-bbb.scr.in
 create mode 100644 recipes-bsp/u-boot-bbb/files/fw_env.config
 create mode 100644 recipes-bsp/u-boot-bbb/files/ubootenv-bbb
 create mode 100644 recipes-bsp/u-boot-bbb/u-boot-bbb_2022.05.bb
 create mode 100644 recipes-core/customizations/files/interfaces
 create mode 100644 
recipes-core/swupdate-handler-roundrobin/files/swupdate.handler.u-boot
.ini  create mode 100644 wic/bbb-u-boot.wks.in

Why not using the UEFI path, like we have for qemu-arm already? Would be much simpler to add (and likely also to maintain).

Also, I'm skeptical that your changes didn't break the UEFI integration.
Did you test it afterward?

Jan

--
Siemens AG, Technology
Competence Center Embedded Linux