On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 12:58:39PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > 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(-) Applied, thanks Sascha > > 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 > > > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
