[U-Boot] [PATCH 20/20] tegra: config: nyan-big: Add options required by Chrome OS boot

[Simon Glass]

Hi Stephen,

On 19 May 2015 at 09:41, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 05/18/2015 03:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On 15 May 2015 at 09:34, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/13/2015 07:56 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> On 25 February 2015 at 16:31, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/17/2015 03:29 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to match the device tree in the FIT with the U-Boot model so
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> can automatically select the right device tree. Also adjust the load
>>>>>> address
>>>>>> so that the device tree is not in the way when a zImage kernel tries
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> extract itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't tend to use LOADADDR in any of the default boot scripts any
>>>>> more.
>>>>> Rather, we explicitly load files to a "semantic" location indicated by
>>>>> one
>>>>> of the following variables in tegra124-common.h:
>>>>>
>>>>> #define MEM_LAYOUT_ENV_SETTINGS \
>>>>>           "scriptaddr=0x90000000\0" \
>>>>>           "pxefile_addr_r=0x90100000\0" \
>>>>>           "kernel_addr_r=0x81000000\0" \
>>>>>           "fdt_addr_r=0x82000000\0" \
>>>>>           "ramdisk_addr_r=0x82100000\0"
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the ChromeOS boot scripts could be adjusted to use one/some of
>>>>> those
>>>>> variables?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the value of CONFIG_LOADADDR isn't appropriate, perhaps we should
>>>>> fix
>>>>> it
>>>>> for all Tegra SoCs/boards?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I forgot about this comment sorry. I had problems with the image
>>>> overwriting itself. It is a bzImage inside a FIT so doesn't use the
>>>> proper FIT decompression.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway I'd like to clarify what is meant by kernel_addr_r. Is that
>>>> where the FIT is loaded or where the kernel will decompress to, or
>>>> something else?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> kernel_addr_r is the address in RAM at which a kernel zImage is loaded by
>>> config_distro_bootcmd.h scripts (and likely other scripts too). It's
>>> usually
>>> deliberately chosen to be a fair way into RAM, so that when the zImage
>>> decompresses (to approx the start of RAM), the decompressed image doesn't
>>> overlap the compressed image at kernel_addr_r. This avoids the kernel
>>> decompressor having to move/copy the zImage somewhere else before copying
>>> to
>>> avoid any overlap during decompression.
>>>
>>> config_distro_bootcmd.h doesn't support FIT, so I haven't tried out
>>> loading
>>> FIT images. That said, if U-Boot simply jumps to the location of the
>>> kernel
>>> in the FIT image itself without any copying, I would expect everything to
>>> work fine if you loaded a FIT image to kernel_addr_r. However, if the
>>> processing of the FIT image requires the kernel to be copied out of the
>>> FIT
>>> image to some other location, you'd have to carefully choose that
>>> location
>>> so it didn't overlap anything. I'd strongly recommend avoiding any
>>> unnecessary copies like that though, if at all possible, from the
>>> perspective of both pointlessly wasted execution time and simplicity of
>>> the
>>> boot process. Perhaps storing a a kernel_noload image type inside the FIT
>>> rather than a kernel image type might help there? Perhaps you want to
>>> introduce a new standard variable that defines where FIT images are
>>> loaded.
>>
>>
>> I wonder what would be involved in adjusting config_distro_bootcmd to
>> support FIT?
>
>
> Well, it goes against the very idea of config_distro_bootcmd, which is to
> provide a single standard mechanism that doesn't rely on any
> bootloader-specific file formats etc. That mechanism is a raw zImage, a raw
> initrd, and a plain text extlinux.cfg file to specify things like file
> paths/names, command-line, etc.
>
> The boot.scr support there is legacy, and not something that should be built
> upon going forward. So, that's not an argument for adding support for a
> third mechanism!

Do we need to adjust the mechanism? The only difference I see is that
FIT brings the files together.

>
>> Would it make it simpler or harder? To me, we should be
>> moving to using FIT with U-Boot as it is much more flexible and better
>> designed from the ground up to provide the required features.
>
>
> I disagree that FIT is a good idea, but that's a separate topic.
>
>> Anyway, normally FIT has a compressed kernel (e.g. with LZO), not a
>> bzImage.
>
>
> Do you mean FIT normally contains an originally uncompressed kernel (i.e. an
> Image file in ARM land at least), but then compresses it itself as part of
> FIT image generation? A bzImage is also a "compressed kernel".

That's right, that's what I mean.

>
>> So it seems like we need an additional decompression address.
>>
>> I suppose we could always use malloc() instead... But perhaps a FIT
>> load address makes sense. But then we don't really need a kernel load
>> address do we? Shouldn't that be specified in the FIT itself?
>
>
> A FIT load address does sound like it makes sense.
>
> If U-Boot copies the kernel image out of the FIT image to somewhere else,
> the FIT image shouldn't specify the address to copy it to. This varies per
> SoC, so if this address is hard-coded into FIT, it means the FIT image can't
> be used on different SoCs (or perhaps even different boards, depending on
> how differing RAM sizes work on various HW). This is why with
> config_distro_bootcmd, all the addresses come from the U-Boot environment,
> not hard-coded into a file on the disk. That way, the files are all generic
> and can be used on various different systems that require different
> addresses. It possibly makes sense for kernel_addr_r to be the destination
> of that copy?

Doesn't the kernel know where the kernel needs to be loaded / copied
as part of the bzImage stuff? From what I see at present this is
hard-coded into the code in the kernel. So we need to put this correct
address in the FIT, is that right? Are you thinking we should allow
FIT to take an environment variable as a load address?

If so, I feel it would make a lot of sense for the kernel to package
up the FIT to avoid these issues.

Regards,
Simon