[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/9] ARM: socfpga: Bundle U-Boot fitImage into SFP on Arria10

[Marek Vasut]

On 11/27/2018 10:00 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 12:22 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 11/26/2018 11:30 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 13:40 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/23/2018 10:54 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 15:21 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/21/2018 11:41 AM, tien.fong.chee at intel.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee at intel.com>
>>>>>> Did you change Author:ship of the patch ?
>>>> I believe you did, so please fix that.
>>> Very sorry. I din't realize the author name was changed.
>> Please be careful next time.
> Sure.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bundle U-Boot fitImage containing U-Boot and FPGA bitstream
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> u-boot-with-spl.sfp on Arria10. This lets U-Boot operate in
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> similar fashion to Gen5, where the U-Boot binary got loaded
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> SPL from a uImage concatenated at the end of the SPL SFP
>>>>>>> image.
>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>> Gen10, the U-Boot is in fitImage which contains the FPGA
>>>>>>> bitstream
>>>>>>> as well. In this case, the SPL can load the FPGA bitstream
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> load the U-Boot afterward in the same manner. This is
>>>>>>> nonetheless a
>>>>>>> stopgap measure until there is a proper firmware loader in
>>>>>>> U-
>>>>>>> Boot.
>>>>>> Right, this is a stopgap measure until FW loader is present.
>>>>>> Why
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> patch needed at all in this series ?
>>>>> This patch is cherry picked from the sdmmc_next custodian, so
>>>>> this
>>>>> patch is required for generating FIT image. I can remove the
>>>>> stopgap
>>>>> comment to avoid confusing.
>>>> But why is this patch needed at all ? You use the firmware loader
>>>> to
>>>> load the FPGA bitstream. Where does the fitImage come into play ?
>>>>
>>>> The fitImage was used to circumvent the missing FW loader, when I
>>>> needed
>>>> to load multiple files (bitstream and u-boot binary). Now there
>>>> is no
>>>> such requirement anymore, so the entire fitImage machinery is
>>>> probably
>>>> not needed ?
>>> Loading issue is not the reason we choose the fitImage. We choose
>>> it
>>> because it allows more flexibility in handling various type images,
>>> especially it allows user more choices to enhance integrity and
>>> security protection.
>> Do you need to load multiple images at all ? Do you need the extra
>> flexibility or does it only bloat and slow down the boot process for
>> no
>> benefit at all? If a user needs it, they can enable it, but do we
>> need
>> it by default ?
> Okay, then we add in the fitImage support and let user to enable it.
> So, without CONFIG_SPL_FIT is defined, then the boot process would be
> with individual files such as u-boot-dtb.img instead of u-boot.itb.

Yes, so all these fitImage patches can be dropped for now ?

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut