On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 09:39 +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > Hi Sjoerd, > > > On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 13:45 +0900, Hyungwon Hwang wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 15:33:05 +0100 > > > Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.sim...@collabora.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > signed_bl1_position=1 > > > > bl2_position=31 > > > > uboot_position=63 > > > > tzsw_position=719 > > > > env_position=1231 > > > > > > > > for the various locations.. Which also explains the limit 335872 > > > > bytes in your initial mail.. Awkward one though. Wonder if that's > > > > an SoC issue or something hardkernel could fix by having a > > > > different bl1/bl2? > > > > > > > > > > (719 - 63) * 512 = 335876 bytes. The limitation is needed not to > > > overwrite tzsw. > > > > > > Are you saying that the limitation can be removed? Yes, with > > > different bl1/bl2. But I do not think that another bl1/bl2 will be > > > released to relieve the limitation. > > > > It was a something i was wondering. After send this e-mail i had a > > chat with Mauro Ribeiro on #linux-exynos. He indicate that the BL2 > > determines the u-boot load location and that it's an u-boot SPL build > > from their u-boot branch. Also he indicated that he would be happy to > > sign a modified SPL build which e.g. loads u-boot from behind the > > TZSW. > > > > You can find the IRC log here: > > http://irclog.whitequark.org/linux-exynos/2014-11-27 > > > > I have yet to take him up on that offer though, but it sounds like a > > good way forward. The current layout really isn't practical. > > > > It indeed isn't very practical, but this is what you received from > HardKernel when you buy XU3 board. > > Of course you can grab their sources, modify the layout, prepare > u-boot's SPL and send it to them to be signed. > However, it is not the way the "normal" user do things. > > He or she would like to replace standard (and outdated) HardKernel > u-boot on their SD card and go forward with booting kernel.
> For now we _must_ focus on supporting XU3 with default BL1/BL2 and hence > we are obliged to have u-boot size smaller than 328 KiB. I don't see a big issue with telling the "normal" user[0] to replace both the BL2 and u-boot itself. If the hardkernel folks indeed do sign the BL2 for us, i'm more then happy to make that publically available. 0: Do normal users replace u-boot? -- Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.sim...@collabora.co.uk> Collabora Ltd.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
