On Sat, 2019-02-02 at 09:06 -0800, Paul Walmsley wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Auer, Lukas wrote: > > > For the same reason, I agree with you that it does not make sense > > to > > implement the SBI in U-Boot. OpenSBI is better suited to handle > > this. > > It should be possible to link the OpenSBI library with U-boot, then > allow > U-boot to use SBI services itself, and to expose the SBI services to > whatever it boots. So the OpenSBI boot firmware wouldn't be used, > but the > underlying library code would be. That simplifies the boot flow, > since > the (separate) OpenSBI firmware would no longer be needed. >
Yes, that would also work. I am not at all against integrating the OpenSBI library into U-Boot. Having a separate SBI implementation instead of a shared one (OpenSBI) is what I think does not make sense. Thanks, Lukas > > A boot flow that could be used in this case is the following. > > > > ZSBL -> U-Boot SPL (M-mode) -> OpenSBI -> U-Boot proper (S-mode) > > There are other boot flows that are common on ARM platforms: > > - Boot ROM -> SPL -> U-boot -> Linux > - Boot ROM -> SPL -> U-boot -> (SBI implementation / TEE) -> Linux > > It would be good if we could avoid prejudicing against any of these > boot > flows. > > > - Paul _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
