[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] spl: add support to booting with ATF

[Kever Yang]

Hi,


On 04/01/2017 12:22 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28 March 2017 at 08:37, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 28/03/17 15:16, Dan Handley wrote:
>>> Hi Kever
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Kever Yang [mailto:kever.yang at rock-chips.com]
>>>> Sent: 28 March 2017 08:23
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/23/2017 05:22 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>>> Hi Kever,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering if we really need to copy in all those ATF definitions.
>>>>> I think this is really an *interface* between the loader (SPL or BL2)
>>>>> and the runtime services (BL31), so it's supposed to be stable and we
>>>>> wouldn't need to pull in all those headers.
>>>> Yes, you are right, this is an interface between the loader and bl31,
>>>> and it's from ATF, just like android image header if from Android
>>>> project, so my idea copy the header definition.
>>>>> So given that, can't we simply model the data structure, which at the
>>>>> end of the day is just a bunch of simple data types:
>>>> I'm sorry, I don't get your point here, what's the benefit for us to re-
>>>> define the header data types?
>>> I guess Andre's point was to copy just the essential data structures,
>>> not all the other baggage in that header file.
>> Yes, that what my intention.
>> I just wanted to avoid pasting this pretty big and somewhat foreign code
>> into U-Boot, when all we need is four simple data structures.

Thanks for the detail explain, yes the data structures are the most 
important,
and other definition could be removed if not necessary.
>>
>>>>> Whenever this gets changed we are in trouble anyway (because we break
>>>>> compatibility).
>>>> Yes, we hope it won't change, but it depends on ATF not U-Boot, no
>>>> matter what kind if data type we using in U-Boot, we can not stop this,
>>>> it's the ATF break the compatibility, not U-Boot SPL.
>> But as mentioned below, ATF can handle multiple versions, so it can keep
>> compatibility.
>>
>>>>> So what are the opinions on this? Pull in the ATF source or define our
>>>>> own and mark it as an ATF copy?
>>>> ATF is the one using all these header structure, if they change there
>>>> API and break, yes, we need/have to sync again.
>>>>
>>>> Dan in CC is ATF maintainer.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Dan, are you able to provide some information for the header
>>>> structure, for example, is it suppose to change/update in the future?
>>>>
>>> The ARM TF BL31 interface is defined here:
>>> https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/docs/firmware-design.md#required-cpu-state-when-calling-bl31_entrypoint-during-cold-boot
>>>
>>> In summary, the arguments passed to BL31 in X0 and X1 are platform
>>> specific and not used by generic BL31 code. Conventionally, X0 has been
>>> used by TF BL2 to pass a bl31_params structure, which is used by ARM
>>> Limited platforms and possibly others but not necessarily all. This
>>> structure has now been superseded by a new structure called bl_params,
>>> which caters for AArch32 platforms and should be more futureproof. Both
>>> bl31_params and bl_params are prefixed with metadata in a param_header,
>>> which includes a version number. BL31 platform code could potentially
>>> handle both bl31_params and bl_params by checking the version number but
>>> ARM platforms expect one or the other depending on the value of a build
>>> flag (LOAD_IMAGE_V2). It's hard to say what other platforms do but I
>>> guess a lot of them use bl31_params.
>> Yes, so with the versioning scheme I don't see many problems. A really
>> versatile BL31 could handle both, so would be compatible.
>> At the end of the day I think this is a theoretical issue, as you
>> usually package ATF, SPL and U-Boot together and can make sure that they
>> match. It's not like people insert their own bl31 into an existing
>> image. And with everything being open source you can always rebuild anyway.
>>
>>> I suggest that U-Boot SPL mandates that platforms that wish to use TF
>>> BL31 with U-Boot SPL must use the bl_params structure. It may also need
>>> to mandate that this contains BL33 information specific to U-Boot.
>> That sounds like a good idea.
>>
>>> Alternatively, U-Boot SPL could define its own structure(s) according to
>>> its needs, and mandate that BL31 platforms it wishes to support conform
>>> to this.
>> Philipp had the idea of using a small device tree blob to convey
>> information between the SPL (or any other loader, really) and BL31,
>> similar to what the FIT does. In fact it could even be the FIT image. So
>> the bl_params structure would just contain a pointer to that DT blob in
>> memory, and bl31 then parses this to get as many information as it needs
>> from the loader, without affecting the actual SPL->BL31 interface. Yes,
>> that is another level of indirection, but I think worth to explore - at
>> least for the future. This would for instance allow the loader to pass
>> the address of the device DT to bl31, which could then make use of it -
>> either for getting information or for inserting nodes (PSCI or other
>> firmware services) - or for both.
> Perhaps this could be future work? For now, I suggest we take this
> patch once the header file has been cut down.

I agree, I will send one new patch first which remove some MACRO not
used.

Thanks,
- Kever
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>