Jagan,
> On 13 Jun 2017, at 19:10, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I know this must break socfpga platform, and as I have said in cover letter,
>>> I think this patch also break bcm and sunxi platform, I add 'RFC' for this
>>> patch
>>> set because I don't know the detail requirement of hook0 for other 3
>>> platform,
>>> I'm not asking if this patch set break other 3 platforms or not, but I'm
>>> asking for
>>> the solution for those 3 platform so that we can apply this patch set.
>>
>> The following platforms have a boot0-hook implemented:
>>
>> ./arch/arm/include/asm/arch-rockchip/boot0.h
>> ./arch/arm/include/asm/arch-bcm235xx/boot0.h
>> ./arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/boot0.h
>> ./arch/arm/include/asm/arch-bcm281xx/boot0.h
>> ./arch/arm/mach-socfpga/include/mach/boot0.h
>>
>>> I think my patch is correct in what HOOK0 wants to do, just like Philipp's
>>> opinion
>>> in another mail.
>>> I hope to get help from maintainer for socfpga, bcm, sunxi platform.
>
> for sunxi32 boot0 hook does normal execution (b reset) but the image
> changed 4 bytes with this change.
>
> w/o the change:
> 0000000 0016 ea00 4765 4e4f 422e 3054 cf32 4cc6
> 0000010 6000 0000 5053 024c 0000 0000 0000 0000
>
> with the change:
> 0000000 0016 ea00 4765 4e4f 422e 3054 da15 4b6f
> 0000010 6000 0000 5053 024c 0000 0000 0000 0000
>
> of-course board not booting.
You may be looking at the wrong part of the image, as this is
part of the header (the code from vectors.S starts at 0x60):
00000000 16 00 00 ea 65 47 4f 4e 2e 42 54 30 24 45 26 97 |....eGON.BT0$E&.|
00000010 00 60 00 00 53 50 4c 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |.`..SPL.........|
00000020 2c 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 73 75 6e 38 |,...........sun8|
00000030 69 2d 68 33 2d 6f 72 61 6e 67 65 70 69 2d 70 63 |i-h3-orangepi-pc|
00000040 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |................|
*
00000060 0f 00 00 ea 14 f0 9f e5 14 f0 9f e5 14 f0 9f e5 |................|
00000070 14 f0 9f e5 14 f0 9f e5 14 f0 9f e5 14 f0 9f e5 |................|
00000080 a0 00 00 00 a0 00 00 00 a0 00 00 00 a0 00 00 00 |................|
00000090 a0 00 00 00 a0 00 00 00 a0 00 00 00 ef be ad de |…………….|
When looking at the header-definition in spl.h, the changed word is the length:
/* boot head definition from sun4i boot code */
struct boot_file_head {
uint32_t b_instruction; /* one intruction jumping to real code */
uint8_t magic[8]; /* ="eGON.BT0" or "eGON.BT1", not C-style str */
uint32_t check_sum; /* generated by PC */
uint32_t length; /* generated by PC */
With Kever’s change I’d expect something to happen at 0x60.
And if it moves code around there, it’s likely to break the mksunxiboot.c
implementation, which builds the instruction:
/* fill the header */
img.header.b_instruction = /* b instruction */
0xEA000000 | /* jump to the first instr after the header */
((sizeof(struct boot_file_head) / sizeof(int) - 2)
& 0x00FFFFFF);
In fact, I now wonder whether most of the header chould already
be generated by the boot0-hook, such that only the length and
the checksum would need to be patched in by mksunxiboot.c…
…but that is me taking the second step before the first ;-)
—Phil.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
