On 12/30/2016 10:28 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > Hi Marek, > >> On 12/29/2016 04:26 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:41:06AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 12/28/2016 09:52 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>> >>>>>> On 12/26/2016 05:36 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/29/2016 07:18 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:50:34AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2016 10:11 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2016 10:09 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> This define gives the possibility to copy entire image >>>>>>>>>>>>> (including header - e.g. u-boot.img) from NOR parallel >>>>>>>>>>>>> memory to e.g. SDRAM. The current code only supports >>>>>>>>>>>>> loading the raw binary image (the u-boot.bin). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The legacy behavior is preserved, since other board don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled this option. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sooooo, what's the usecase again ? ;-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> :-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The use case is to allow u-boot.img being loaded from >>>>>>>>>>> Parallel NOR. The current code only supports u-boot.bin. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why is u-boot.bin (or the payload) not sufficient ? Why do >>>>>>>>>> you need the header ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, the general use-case and code flow is that we load >>>>>>>>> u-boot.img (or a FIT image) and if all else fails, fall back >>>>>>>>> to assuming a .bin and a known address). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And exactly how is that whole image useful in RAM ? Sorry, I >>>>>>>> still do not see it, usually you just need the executable >>>>>>>> payload, although even that can be left in flash most of the >>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The use case is that I do want to boot from SD card/eMMC and NOR >>>>>>> with using u-boot.img. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to avoid situation when for NOR I must use >>>>>>> u-boot.bin and for eMMC u-boot.img. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Such approach keeps things as simple as possible :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, so it allows you to detect bitrot for the content in SPI >>>>>> NOR ? >>>>> >>>>> I do not use SPI NOR, it is parallel NOR. >>>> >>>> Sorry, I meant parallel NOR of course. >>>> >>>>>> It's a bit strange we had to use u-boot.bin with SPL there. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is how the legacy system behaves. It uses (by default) >>>>> Parallel NOR for booting (with advised/provided NOR memory >>>>> timings). After doing some measurements, it turned out that for >>>>> "tunned" u-boot/SPL there would be the best way to copy it to ram >>>>> and execute it from there (just like eMMC). >>>>> >>>>> Hence, I would like to use u-boot.img in both booting scenarios. >>>> >>>> I think I was mistaken yesterday, I don't think I understand why >>>> copying the image including the header into RAM has any benefit >>>> compared to copying just the image payload to RAM (and yes, we're >>>> getting back to my original question). >>> >>> Code complexity and forward compatibility? >> >> This is adding code complexity, but this is not my point. >> >>> The general case in the SPL >>> framework is that we have either a "legacy" image or a FIT image >>> and we fall back to "well, just run it!". >> >> Well, this doesn't answer my question, because if I understand this >> patch correctly, it copies the entire legacy image (incl. header) into >> RAM instead of copying just the image payload (which we already do). I >> don't really understand why we want to do this. Or do I misunderstand >> something ? > > No, you understood everything correctly. After some thoughts, I think > that only payload should be copied.
But that's what we already do, no ? So what is the point of this patch ? > I'll prepare test setup and double check this patch usability by Monday. OK -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
