Hi Simon, > Hi, > > On 28 November 2014 at 06:46, Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@majess.pl> > wrote: > > Hello Javier, > > > >> Hello Lukasz, > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Lukasz Majewski > >> <l.majew...@majess.pl> wrote: > >> >> 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 He or she would like to replace standard (and outdated) 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. > >> > > >> > >> I agree with Sjoed that normal users don't replace the low-level > >> components that are provided by the board vendor. > >> > >> After all you can boot a mainline kernel using the vendor u-boot, > >> just append the DTB and create a uImage. The practical reason why > >> someone would want to replace the vendor u-boot is to have more > >> features but is very hard to do if there is a constraint in the > >> maximum u-boot image size (even harder if the maximum is such > >> small like in the XU3). > > > > I agree that 328 KiB size for u-boot is a constraint. I don't know > > HardKernel's justification for this. > > > >> > >> > 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. > >> > > >> > It is challenging but for sure doable. > >> > > >> > >> It is doable but I don't see why the default BL2 _must_ be used. > > > > For practical/pragmatic reasons: > > > > 1. It is difficult to have signed BL2 - each time we need to ask > > HardKernel for signing it. It is impractical and hampers usage of > > mainline SPL (BL2) with XU3. > > > > 2. All the documentation on the HardKernel wiki site refers to the > > default BL2. > > > > 3. We will have "new" BL2, which source code is based on 2012.07 > > mainline u-boot. > > > > 4. Two BL2 binaries - IMHO will hurt (i.e. brick) some device sooner > > or latter. > > > >> > >> A user that wants to replace the kernel or u-boot is already > >> tech-savy and can for sure replace the BL2 as well if it's > >> publicly available. > > > > Sorry, but I'm a bit sceptical about updating such low level code. > > Bad things do happen. > > > >> Maybe hardkernel folks can even make the modified BL2 available on > >> their website and the link added in the comment explaining the > >> layout? > > > > We would then require HardKernel to: > > > > 1. Provide updated BL2.img > > 2. Update their wiki to reflect the new BL2. > > > >> > >> Also, it is an artificial constraint after all and can be easily > >> modified. In fact I think we should push hardkernel to change that > >> layout by default and use a BL2/SPL that has more sensible size for > >> the u-boot binary even if they don't need it for their vendor > >> u-boot which seems to be quite small. > > > > I totally agree. > > > > I'd like to propose a following plan: > > > > 1. Accept Hyungwon's patches to have XU3 u-boot < 328 KiB (with > > link to default BL2) to have XU3 support in place (and treat it as > > a starting point) > > > > 2. If u-boot's size less than 328 KiB is _really_ a problem to > > somebody then ask hardkernel to change BL2 or: > > - modify their sources to change the layout (I regard this > > as a "quick hack" solution) > > - with a lot of pain develop BL2/SPL (by whom?) which base > > on newest mainline (then for each test hardkernel must sign the > > binary). > > My 2p worth... > > The current Hardkernel BL1 looks broken to me - it is just too old.
+1 > While it is shipped with the board if you get an eMMC, the main way > people will get this is by downloading it from their site. So why not > download something different? As far as I remember U3 and probably XU3 in their README only points for HardKernel's site to grab BL1 and BL2. We don't plan to include their binaries to u-boot repository. > > Re the plan, I think 1 is fine so long as it is protected by a big > ugly hack CONFIG and we can turn it off soon and revert the code. Hyungwon's patches only touch u-boot and rely (temporary I hope) on BL1 and BL2/SPL from Hardkernel. > > For 2, the size issue is one problem, but the clock code in U-Boot is > another IMO. We should try to get both resolved. Maybe it is possible > to use the peach-pit BL2 and get hardkernel to test it and sign it? I guess that SPL from peach-pit should be tunable to work with XU3 (in a finite number of iterations including signing from HardKernel). As it is based on recent u-boot it should be easy to produce BL2/SPL only for XU3 (if needed). > Then people will download that one instead. > > is there a contact at hardkernel on the mailing list? As fair as I know no. I was posting questions on their forum. Maybe it is a right place to ask for contact point? As fair as I remember they were willing to sign SPL/BL2 when sent to them. > > Regards, > Simon Best regards, Lukasz Majewski
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
