On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 03:12:19PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > On 28.4.2016 15:07, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:44:50AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > >> Hi Simon and Tom, > >> > >> On 23.2.2016 06:55, Simon Glass wrote: > >>> Enable SPL FIT support for the Linksprite pcDuino3 as an example of how > >>> this > >>> feature is used. > >>> > >>> This is only for demonstration purposes and is not to be applied. > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> Changes in v2: None > >>> > >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/board.c | 5 +++++ > >>> configs/Linksprite_pcDuino3_defconfig | 4 ++++ > >>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) > >> > >> I have played with SPL_FIT support and find some things > >> First of all > >> "mkimage: Support placing data outside the FIT" > >> (722ebc8f84d5bccd2e70fad1079a0dd40cceddec) > >> is missing description in usage function to see what -E options does. > >> > >> Then I have found a problem with fit address calculation because it has > >> to be aligned. > >> I have sent an RFC for it > >> "SPL: FIT: Align loading address for header" > >> > >> I have also added support for ram load for FIT - please review. > >> "SPL: FIT: Enable SPL_FIT_LOAD in RAM based boot mode" > > > > I think these are reasonable. > > > >> And also for SD fat based images. > >> "SPL: FIT: Enable SPL_FIT_LOAD for sd bootmode for fat partions" > > > > Ug, sorry. You missed the series from Lokesh that added a bunch more > > features along those lines. I didn't pull them in since it was past the > > merge window but will for the next release. > > Ah ok. Will look. > > > > >> Is there any plan to support falcon mode? > >> Also I see kind of interesting to have one fit image with ATF, Secure > >> OS, bitstreams and U-Boot and Linux kernel + dtbs > >> Currently spl_load_simple_fit() seems to me expecting to blindly read > >> the first fit partition and say this is u-boot and then based > >> configuration description choose dtb. > >> > >> Do you have any plan to get even u-boot image from configurations instead? > >> The we should get a support for loadables. > > > > Well, the first itch I needed scratched was supporting many similar > > platforms in DM+DT from a single binary, and that's what's there today. > > So long as we can do things in a clean way, all of these other use cases > > sound interesting and clearly useful to some people, so I don't object. > > > How do you identify platform you are running at?
In these cases we know there is an I2C EEPROM with information in a given format so we can go from there. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
