On 11/27/2018 10:00 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: > On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 12:22 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> 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. > Sure. >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 ? > Okay, then we add in the fitImage support and let user to enable it. > So, without CONFIG_SPL_FIT is defined, then the boot process would be > with individual files such as u-boot-dtb.img instead of u-boot.itb.
Yes, so all these fitImage patches can be dropped for now ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
