[PATCH] fixup! ARM: i.MX8M: implement bootrom log viewing command

[Ahmad Fatoum]

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@ifm.com/

Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum at pengutronix.de>
---
 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