[U-Boot] u-boot-socfpga repository

Dinh Nguyen
2014-09-14T15:39:19Z

Hi David,

On 9/13/14, 12:24 PM, David Hawkins wrote:
> Hi Dinh,
>
>>> Up until now I have avoided any SoC development kits as
>>> I considered the software support to not have matured
>>> enough. I consider "mature" code to be code that I can
>>> checkout from mainline, where mainline is U-Boot via the
>>> Denx repos, and Linux via the Kernel repos.
>>
>> For Linux, we have done a better job than u-boot. You should
>> be able to have most of what you need from kernel.org for the
>> Altera Devkits and Terasic SocKit board. The most important
>> piece maybe the FPGA manager, otherwise the SOCFPGA platform
>> is just any other A9 board.
>>
>> The FPGA manager is in-flight:
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/1/517
>
> Thanks, this is valuable and encouraging feedback.
>
>> For U-boot, the upstreaming process has been slow. I admit it, but
>> it is very high on our to-do list.
>
> One thing Altera needs to understand is that there are numerous
> developers out there that are willing to help. If the upstreaming
> process is slow, perhaps that is due to lack of openness? I'm
> not saying that is the case here, but its a consideration.
> There are plenty of people willing to help, and sometimes all
> it takes is asking :)

Agreed. From day one of the SOCFPGA project, we(Altera's Linux/U-boot's
development team have made a pledge to upstream as much support as
possible and to be as open as possible. The thought behind rocketboards
was also a central point of information for socfpga, that would include
patches for linux and u-boot. We've established that for linux, and now
need to do the same for u-boot.

>
>>> Freescale has done this forever, and I hold their
>>> processors and code in high regard.
>>>
>> I used to work at Freescale's doing the i.MX parts. I hope
>> these were the processors you had in the mind?
>
> We've been using the PowerPC products, but the iMX parts are
> very nice too, they just didn't happen to have the peripheral
> combo I needed.
>
>>> Which ones are supported in mainline U-Boot and Linux?
>>> What will it take to make it easier for the end-user
>>> like myself?
>>
>> Echoing earlier...There is good Linux support for the Altera
>> Cyclone5 and Arria5 devkit and Terasic SoCkit from kernel.org.
>
> Ok, that is good to know, thank-you.
>
>>> Altera developers, please follow Wolfgang's advice.
>>
>> Wolfgang's advice is valuable and noted. However, it is in Altera's
>> best interest that we have 1 central gathering point for all our
>> opensource software support.
>>
>> I maintain a linux-next git repo at rocketboards for patches that have
>> been properly reviewed, and acked-by that are destined for kernel.org.
>> The logic should follow that I(Altera) would do the same for u-boot
>> patches at rocketboards that are destined for mainline u-boot at denx.
>
> As the maintainer of the U-Boot socfpga repository you would still
> have the level of control you want. The rocketboards repo would
> be a location that could be used to access a clone of the u-boot
> mainline, and as Wolfgang mentioned, your u-boot-socfpga-next
> development repo can be anywhere you want it.
>

I think the point has shifted that Wolfgang wants to appoint an external
entity to be the custodian for u-boot-socfpga-next. I contend that an
in-house custodian(Altera employee) would do a much better job, have the
information, and put Altera's best interest first in this job.

> Keep in mind that git is not centralized like subversion or CVS,
> so having a central git repo is really more of a "convention"
> than something required by the architecture. As an end-user of
> software, the "brand I trust" is U-Boot, so when I want the
> latest source for U-Boot, I go to the source. Rocketboards
> does not have any brand recognition for me, so its not a
> trusted source.
>
Good point. This was the problem with the raspberry-pi for quite some
time, but those guys have done a good job upstreaming the rpi support to
mainline. Regarding the "brand I trust", what latest feature(s) of
u-boot are you looking for on the socfpga that is not available
downstream and is available in the mainline?

> Keep in mind that Altera's track record with NIOS II and Linux
> support will cloud the judgement of many users. I never got
> to the point of trying uCLinux or Linux on NIOS II as I
> have never seen clean support for that processor architecture.
> That situation may have changed now, but the Altera NIOS II
> U-Boot and Linux brand was tarnished by poor initial support
> and openness.

Please see here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/139

>
> Please do not take any of these comments as negative, or as
> a complaint that you are not doing your job, this is merely
> feedback from a third party that just wants to be able to
> "plug" an SoC into a system and have working U-Boot and Linux,
> so that I can concentrate on my own unique hardware/software
> layered upon that solid base.
>
> The open-source community really appreciates Altera taking
> the time to listen and benefit from our help.

Your feedback is very valuable and as I've stated earlier, the Altera's
Linux/U-boot team is committed to the community from day one. But as
you've seen from the NIOS II past openness issue, Altera's core was not
about openness. We've made good strides to convince the company that
being part of the community is a very good thing. Heck, as you may have
notice from our email address(opensource.altera.com). It's only taken us
2 years to get that.

Dinh