Hi, On 14 July 2016 at 06:14, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> wrote: > Hi Andre, > > > On 07/13/2016 08:45 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 13/07/16 13:27, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> >>> Hi Kever, >>> >>> Am 20.06.2016 um 04:59 schrieb Kever Yang: >>>> >>>> I want to upstream a new SoC named RK3399 from Rockchip which is >>>> AARCH64/ARMv8, we need to support Arm Trust Firmware base on U-boot. >>>> >>>> Right now we are using a miniloader(just like SPL in U-boot) to >>>> load >>>> ATF/U-boot, >>>> and PC jump from miniloader to ATF and then to U-boot(with CPU change to >>>> EL2 mode or nsEL1), >>>> then U-boot load kernel/rootfs as usual. >>>> >>>> The ATF support for RK3399 has already upstream >>>> Could you give your opinion on how to support ATF on U-boot >>>> upstream? >>>> When I asked Simon Glass offline, he suggest if we can build ATF as part >>>> of the >>>> U-boot build process, perhaps with a script in U-boot tree, >>>> >>>> Perhaps something like: >>>> >>>> make rk3399_board_defconfig >>>> make >>>> ./scripts/build-atf-image rk3399_board >>>> ^^ new script >> >> I am not sure we should trigger an ATF build on building U-Boot. In my >> build process for the Pine64 I just point to the compiled binary and >> leave it up to the user to take care of compiling that. ATF builds are >> really easy and fast, for the Pine64 it's just: "make PLAT=sun50iw1p1 >> bl31" for instance and takes only a few seconds. > > I have send my patch set today, get bl31 from ATF is easy, still need some > rockchip tools to do the package and load the image. >> >> >>>> In any case, a good README would help. >>> >>> I've started looking into RK3368 for my GeekBox, which raises a similar >>> issue. Are you working on that as well or just RK3399? >>> >>> Personally I think that the approach the HiKey has taken is the best, >>> i.e. decouple U-Boot from ATF and just supply a README for how to make >>> it work with U-Boot as ATF payload. >> >> Interestingly ATF itself considers U-Boot a payload, as it provides its >> own bootstrapping parts which take a similar role as U-Boot's SPL. >> So the official ATF build process (at least for Juno) lets you specify >> the location of the U-Boot binary to be included in their FIP image. >> >> OTOH, some boards (like the Pine64) only use the runtime component of >> ATF, so including it in U-Boot makes more sense (see below). I guess >> this is similar for Rockchip? > > Yes for now, but I think there might be a secure OS in the future. >> >> >>> Obviously it would help to integrate your loaderimage tool into mkimage. >> >> FWIW, I extended SPL's FIT loading to support loading multiple images. >> With this I was able to combine (non-SPL) U-Boot, ATF and multiple DTs >> into one FIT image and attach that to the SPL. >> I even managed to include a kernel and initrd in there, fwiw. >> I will post those patches soonish. > > Great, good news! Simon also want to enable the SPL support for ATF when we > discuss this issue offline, so I think we can see this feature enabled very > soon.
Just to follow up, I send a series that adds a 'binman' tool. I have not added specific support for ATF but it should be very easy to do so, once the image layout is defined. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
