[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/9] ARM: socfpga: Bundle U-Boot fitImage into SFP on Arria10

[Chee, Tien Fong <tien.fong.chee@intel.com>]

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.chee at intel.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee@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.
>