FAIL is reported even for non-HAB boot, so skip that. 0x82 is apparently documented wrongly in application note, see: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20220414163623.16500-1-fedor.ross@xxxxxxx/ Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- arch/arm/mach-imx/bootrom-cmd.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/bootrom-cmd.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/bootrom-cmd.c index 6269f86cbc0d..0238d09b169f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/bootrom-cmd.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/bootrom-cmd.c @@ -117,7 +117,8 @@ static int imx8m_bootrom_decode_log(const u32 *rom_log) rom_log[++i]); continue; case 0x82: - printf("Start to execute boot device driver pre-config\n"); + printf("Start to execute boot device driver pre-config @%u ticks\n", + rom_log[++i]); continue; case 0x83: printf("Boot device driver pre-config completes\n"); @@ -144,8 +145,8 @@ static int imx8m_bootrom_decode_log(const u32 *rom_log) continue; case 0xa0: - printf("Image authentication result: %s (0x%08x) @%u ticks\n", - (rom_log[i+1] & 0xFF) == 0xF0 ? "PASS" : "FAIL", + printf("Image authentication result: %s(0x%08x) @%u ticks\n", + (rom_log[i+1] & 0xFF) == 0xF0 ? "PASS " : "", rom_log[i+1], rom_log[i+2]); i += 2; continue; -- 2.30.2
