<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic LS1046A secure boot in Layerscape</title>
    <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/Layerscape/LS1046A-secure-boot/m-p/1240322#M7620</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Read the documentation about TF-A flow on the LS0146A. Now my head is full of question.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regarding the flow Bootrom-&amp;gt;BL1-&amp;gt;BL2-&amp;gt;BL31..BL33&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Two images are produces bl2_ls1046.pbl (binary+rcw+pbi) and fip.bin (BL31+..+BL33).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;BL2 validates BL31 to BL33. I was wondering why just not signed fip.bin and validate the binary.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Going further is it possible to have just one signed image bl2+fip.bin validated by the bootrom.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Clearly something I do not get about why we need such chain of trust.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cheers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My apologies if the message has been posted twice, it did fail the first time&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2021 14:29:33 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>renaud</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-03-04T14:29:33Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>LS1046A secure boot</title>
      <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/Layerscape/LS1046A-secure-boot/m-p/1240322#M7620</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Read the documentation about TF-A flow on the LS0146A. Now my head is full of question.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regarding the flow Bootrom-&amp;gt;BL1-&amp;gt;BL2-&amp;gt;BL31..BL33&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Two images are produces bl2_ls1046.pbl (binary+rcw+pbi) and fip.bin (BL31+..+BL33).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;BL2 validates BL31 to BL33. I was wondering why just not signed fip.bin and validate the binary.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Going further is it possible to have just one signed image bl2+fip.bin validated by the bootrom.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Clearly something I do not get about why we need such chain of trust.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cheers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My apologies if the message has been posted twice, it did fail the first time&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2021 14:29:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.nxp.com/t5/Layerscape/LS1046A-secure-boot/m-p/1240322#M7620</guid>
      <dc:creator>renaud</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-04T14:29:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: LS1046A secure boot</title>
      <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/Layerscape/LS1046A-secure-boot/m-p/1240780#M7623</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I refer to Layerscape Software Development Kit User Guide, Rev. 20.12, 12/2020. It says: “BL2 validates BL31, BL32, and BL33 images to the DDR memory after validating these images.” I cannot say that this vague sentence says that BL31, BL32, and BL33 are validated one by one in the daisy chain. &lt;BR /&gt;I think because the LSDK should be flexible in order satisfy different requirements it is separated on to BL2 BL3x. For sure it is reasonable to have 2 separate images. One (BL2) is loaded by the PBL&amp;nbsp; and second (fip.bin) loaded by BL2 software.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2021 07:11:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.nxp.com/t5/Layerscape/LS1046A-secure-boot/m-p/1240780#M7623</guid>
      <dc:creator>r8070z</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-05T07:11:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

