[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 27/27] RFC: sunxi: Enable SPL FIT support

[Michal Simek]

On 28.4.2016 21:05, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 03:12:19PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 28.4.2016 15:07, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:44:50AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>> Hi Simon and Tom,
>>>>
>>>> On 23.2.2016 06:55, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>> Enable SPL FIT support for the Linksprite pcDuino3 as an example of how this
>>>>> feature is used.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is only for demonstration purposes and is not to be applied.
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes in v2: None
>>>>>
>>>>>  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/board.c      | 5 +++++
>>>>>  configs/Linksprite_pcDuino3_defconfig | 4 ++++
>>>>>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> I have played with SPL_FIT support and find some things
>>>> First of all
>>>> "mkimage: Support placing data outside the FIT"
>>>> (722ebc8f84d5bccd2e70fad1079a0dd40cceddec)
>>>> is missing description in usage function to see what -E options does.
>>>>
>>>> Then I have found a problem with fit address calculation because it has
>>>> to be aligned.
>>>> I have sent an RFC for it
>>>> "SPL: FIT: Align loading address for header"
>>>>
>>>> I have also added support for ram load for FIT - please review.
>>>> "SPL: FIT: Enable SPL_FIT_LOAD in RAM based boot mode"
>>>
>>> I think these are reasonable.
>>>
>>>> And also for SD fat based images.
>>>> "SPL: FIT: Enable SPL_FIT_LOAD for sd bootmode for fat partions"
>>>
>>> Ug, sorry.  You missed the series from Lokesh that added a bunch more
>>> features along those lines.  I didn't pull them in since it was past the
>>> merge window but will for the next release.
>>
>> Ah ok. Will look.
>>
>>>
>>>> Is there any plan to support falcon mode?
>>>> Also I see kind of interesting to have one fit image with ATF, Secure
>>>> OS, bitstreams and U-Boot and Linux kernel + dtbs
>>>> Currently spl_load_simple_fit() seems to me expecting to blindly read
>>>> the first fit partition and say this is u-boot and then based
>>>> configuration description choose dtb.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any plan to get even u-boot image from configurations instead?
>>>> The we should get a support for loadables.
>>>
>>> Well, the first itch I needed scratched was supporting many similar
>>> platforms in DM+DT from a single binary, and that's what's there today.
>>> So long as we can do things in a clean way, all of these other use cases
>>> sound interesting and clearly useful to some people, so I don't object.
>>
>>
>> How do you identify platform you are running at?
> 
> In these cases we know there is an I2C EEPROM with information in a
> given format so we can go from there.

OK. I see. We have eeproms on boards too which could be used for it too.
It means there is sort of plan to add i2c DM eeprom support to SPL.

Thanks,
Michal