On 26.12.18 13:05, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> From: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> >> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 10:57:38 +0100 >> >> On 12/26/18 8:42 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 26.12.18 03:02, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Mark for pointing this out. >>>> >>>> We have some major differences between bootm and bootefi: >>>> >>>> - Bootefi does not support CONFIG_ARMV8_SWITCH_TO_EL1 used by some >>>> Xilinx boards. >>> >>> Yeah, mostly because I really dislike boards that simply switch to EL1 >>> for no good reason ;). > > The only justification I can see for this is when EL2 is sufficiently > broken that it is inadvisable to have the kernel support > virtualization or if EL2 is used to work around broken hardware. An > example of the latter is the Socionext Synqacer where virtualization > is used to fix up broken PCIe hardware. Of course that U-Boot doesn't > use that SoC; the fixup happens in Tianocore.
In that case I would not expect to see CONFIG_ARMV8_SWITCH_TO_EL1 used though. Instead, I would expect that either ATF, something in between U-Boot and ATF or board specific code would do the fixup magic in EL2. > >>>> - It ignores CONFIG_ARMV8_PSCI. >>> >>> What exactly should it honor here? >> >> Call armv8_setup_psci() and possibly smp_kick_all_cpus(). > > Probably because most ARMv8 SoCs actually use TF-A to implement PSCI. Yeah, I don't think I ran into a case where U-Boot was implementing PSCI. That's probably the reason this case never got triggered so far :/. Alex _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
