On 11/26/2018 11:30 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: > On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 13:40 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 11/23/2018 10:54 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 15:21 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/21/2018 11:41 AM, tien.fong.c...@intel.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.c...@intel.com> >>>> Did you change Author:ship of the patch ? >> I believe you did, so please fix that. > Very sorry. I din't realize the author name was changed.
Please be careful next time. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bundle U-Boot fitImage containing U-Boot and FPGA bitstream >>>>> into >>>>> the >>>>> u-boot-with-spl.sfp on Arria10. This lets U-Boot operate in a >>>>> very >>>>> similar fashion to Gen5, where the U-Boot binary got loaded by >>>>> the >>>>> SPL from a uImage concatenated at the end of the SPL SFP image. >>>>> On >>>>> Gen10, the U-Boot is in fitImage which contains the FPGA >>>>> bitstream >>>>> as well. In this case, the SPL can load the FPGA bitstream >>>>> first >>>>> and >>>>> load the U-Boot afterward in the same manner. This is >>>>> nonetheless a >>>>> stopgap measure until there is a proper firmware loader in U- >>>>> Boot. >>>> Right, this is a stopgap measure until FW loader is present. Why >>>> is >>>> this >>>> patch needed at all in this series ? >>> This patch is cherry picked from the sdmmc_next custodian, so this >>> patch is required for generating FIT image. I can remove the >>> stopgap >>> comment to avoid confusing. >> But why is this patch needed at all ? You use the firmware loader to >> load the FPGA bitstream. Where does the fitImage come into play ? >> >> The fitImage was used to circumvent the missing FW loader, when I >> needed >> to load multiple files (bitstream and u-boot binary). Now there is no >> such requirement anymore, so the entire fitImage machinery is >> probably >> not needed ? > Loading issue is not the reason we choose the fitImage. We choose it > because it allows more flexibility in handling various type images, > especially it allows user more choices to enhance integrity and > security protection. Do you need to load multiple images at all ? Do you need the extra flexibility or does it only bloat and slow down the boot process for no benefit at all? If a user needs it, they can enable it, but do we need it by default ? > Although we plan to use fitImage as our default implementation, but > this series of patches are still allow fw loading individual bitstream > image in filesystem partition. So, it is up to user to made the choice. Right, so is the fitImage needed at all ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
