From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH][v4] powerpc/mpc85xx: SECURE BOOT- Add secure boot target for B4860QDS
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:24:05 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1394493845.6150.1.camel@snotra.buserror.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <531A18E5.9090309@freescale.com>
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 11:07 -0800, York Sun wrote:
> On 03/07/2014 11:00 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 10:58 -0800, York Sun wrote:
> >> On 03/07/2014 10:54 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 10:30 -0800, York Sun wrote:
> >>>> On 03/07/2014 05:23 AM, Aneesh Bansal wrote:
> >>>>> Changes:
> >>>>> 1. L2 cache is being invalidated by Boot ROM code for e6500 core.
> >>>>> So removing the invalidation from start.S
> >>>>> 2. Clear the LAW and corresponding configuration for CPC. Boot ROM
> >>>>> code uses it as hosekeeping area.
> >>>>> 3. For Secure boot, CPC is configured as SRAM and used as house
> >>>>> keeping area. This configuration is to be disabled once in uboot.
> >>>>> Earlier this disabling of CPC as SRAM was happening in cpu_init_r.
> >>>>> As a result cache invalidation function was getting skipped in
> >>>>> case CPC is configured as SRAM.This was causing random crashes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Bansal <aneesh.bansal@freescale.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> README | 4 ++++
> >>>>> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu_init.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>>>> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S | 3 ++-
> >>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/fsl_secure_boot.h | 6 ++++++
> >>>>> boards.cfg | 1 +
> >>>>> 5 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Changes from v3:
> >>>>> Renamed the macro to indicate CPC configured as SRAM at U-boot entry to
> >>>>> CONFIG_SYS_CPC_SRAM
> >>>>
> >>>> Aneesh,
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand you are trying to address the comment about when CPC needs to be
> >>>> disabled before initializing as normal CPC. But introducing CONFIG_SYS_CPC_SRAM
> >>>> seems even more confusing. Let's take one step back.
> >>>>
> >>>> CPC as SRAM can be used for many reasons. There is only one reason we should
> >>>> keep it as SRAM, i.e. u-boot is indeed using SRAM as its final destination. For
> >>>> all other usages, we can safely reconfigure it as normal CPC after u-boot
> >>>> relocates itself into DDR. If u-boot's final destination is SRAM, it is a
> >>>> RAMBOOT. Can we use this condition to deal with CPC?
> >>>
> >>> Even if CPC is the final destination, shouldn't RAMBOOT imply that DDR
> >>> has been initialized?
> >>
> >> No. RAMBOOT implies u-boot shouldn't initialize RAM. There may be cases where
> >> u-boot needs to run in SRAM without DDR. It doesn't matter if the RAM is SRAM or
> >> DRAM.
> >
> > There are some situations where we run U-Boot out of SRAM without
> > relocating to DDR, but I can't think of a situation where we wouldn't
> > want to use DDR at all (e.g. for loading an OS to).
> >
>
> I generally agree with you. Loading OS needs more RAM.
>
> I am trying to simplify the condition to reinitialize CPC. My point is only one
> situation requires the CPC to act as SRAM. We can brainstorm how useful it is.
> For example, as a recovery method if using JTAG tool to enable CPC as SRAM and
> to load u-boot into it, one can skip the steps to initialize DDR to run an
> full-feature u-boot and reflash the board.
What's relevant isn't whether there is a use case for not needing DDR,
but whether there's a use case for having a special build of U-Boot that
skips initializing DDR.
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-10 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-07 13:23 [U-Boot] [PATCH][v4] powerpc/mpc85xx: SECURE BOOT- Add secure boot target for B4860QDS Aneesh Bansal
2014-03-07 18:30 ` York Sun
2014-03-07 18:54 ` Scott Wood
2014-03-07 18:58 ` York Sun
2014-03-07 19:00 ` Scott Wood
2014-03-07 19:07 ` York Sun
2014-03-10 23:24 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2014-03-11 2:46 ` York Sun
2014-03-10 9:14 ` aneesh.bansal at freescale.com
2014-03-10 15:38 ` York Sun
2014-03-10 23:55 ` Scott Wood
2014-03-11 0:00 ` York Sun
2014-03-11 8:43 ` aneesh.bansal at freescale.com
2014-03-07 18:43 ` Scott Wood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1394493845.6150.1.camel@snotra.buserror.net \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox