On 11/28/2018 03:43 PM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 13:09 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> 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 ? > This patch can be dropped. But i don't know it is good idea to reserve > the patch 5-8, this would be easier for user to enable CONFIG_SPL_FIT > in future.
Drop them for now, let's revisit this later. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
