[U-Boot] [PATCH v1] arm: socfpga: Enable load zImage and Linux DTB from QSPI

[Chin Liang See <clsee@altera.com>]

On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 13:11 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 01:07:23 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 11:20 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 02:34:27 AM, Chin Liang See
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Marek,
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 02:27 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 02:24:49 AM, Chin Liang See
> > > > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Pavel,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 15:43 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Adding new environment qspiload which will load zImage
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > Linux DTB from serial NOR flash. The default flash
> > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the images as below and they are configurable during
> > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > - zImage located at    0xa0000 with assuming file size
> > > > > > > > 6MB
> > > > > > > > - Linux DTB located at 0x50000 with assuming file size
> > > > > > > > 28kB
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hmm. Ok, zImage second, so that it can grow. Makes sense.
> > > > > > > Not
> > > > > > > sure if
> > > > > > > 28kB is not a bit small for DTB. I'd reserve at least
> > > > > > > 64kB.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yup, it can grow up to 64kB as the size for a sector. We
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > 28KB
> > > > > > mainly for boot time performance.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So why don't you use UBI on the QSPI NOR ? That way, you'd
> > > > > secure
> > > > > the
> > > > > binaries against bitrot as well.
> > > > 
> > > > Good point. Its a nice enhancement as we were using raw access
> > > > for
> > > > the
> > > > images in NAND and QSPI. Will add a new command for fs support
> > > > once
> > > > we
> > > > enable the ubifs support in socfpga
> > > 
> > > Why can't this be enabled now then ?
> > 
> > Mainly for backward compatibility as customer might have their own
> > script on programming a blank flash in production. This is the same
> > where we can do mmc load or a load (with file system).
> 
> Does that imply that we will have to get stuck in the past because
> some
> random customer of some random company might have a random script
> somewhere? :)
> 

Haha nope, we still need to advance. Just that we are giving choice for
classic and new :)

Thanks
Chin Liang


> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut