[U-Boot] [PATCH v8 2/8] ARM: socfpga: Add default FPGA bitstream fitImage for Arria10 SoCDK

[Chee, Tien Fong]

On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 13:24 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 2/14/19 12:23 PM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 11:35 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 2/14/19 7:04 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 00:04 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 2/13/19 11:45 PM, Dalon L Westergreen wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 17:10 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 2/13/19 3:18 PM, tien.fong.chee at intel.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee at intel.com>
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Add default fitImage file bundling FPGA bitstreams for
> > > > > > > > Arria10.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee at intel.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > changes for v8
> > > > > > > > - Changed the FPGA node name to fpga-core and fpga-
> > > > > > > > periph
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > both core and
> > > > > > > >   periph bitstreams respectively.
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >  board/altera/arria10-socdk/fit_spl_fpga.its | 39
> > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > >  create mode 100644 board/altera/arria10-
> > > > > > > > socdk/fit_spl_fpga.its
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/board/altera/arria10-
> > > > > > > > socdk/fit_spl_fpga.its
> > > > > > > > b/board/altera/arria10-socdk/fit_spl_fpga.its
> > > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > > index 0000000..8ce175b
> > > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > > +++ b/board/altera/arria10-socdk/fit_spl_fpga.its
> > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> > > > > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2019 Intel Corporation <www.intel.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +/dts-v1/;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +/ {
> > > > > > > > +	description = "FIT image with FPGA bistream";
> > > > > > > > +	#address-cells = <1>;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +	images {
> > > > > > > > +		fpga-core at 1 {
> > > > > > > > +			description = "FPGA core
> > > > > > > > bitstream";
> > > > > > > > +			data =
> > > > > > > > /incbin/("../../../ghrd_10as066n2.core.rbf");
> > > > > > > > +			type = "fpga";
> > > > > > > > +			arch = "arm";
> > > > > > > > +			compression = "none";
> > > > > > > > +			load = <0x400>;
> > > > > > > Is the load address required ?
> > > > It is optional for telling destination address of DDR where
> > > > this
> > > > core.rbf going to be loaded. If load property, the default
> > > > OCRAM
> > > > buffer
> > > > would be used, bad for performance when loading chunk by chunk.
> > > So if I have something at 0x400 in DRAM and use this example in
> > > U-
> > > Boot,
> > > it will be overwritten ?
> > This is used for SPL only, at least for now, so that is before
> > loading
> > the U-Boot, DDR is blank.
> > But, you can define the blank location.
> > If load property is not defined, the driver would use small buffer
> > from
> > OCRAM.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > How is OCRAM bad for performance ?
> > With DDR, the performance can up to 85-90%.
> > It is because very limited space in OCRAM, so very small buffer is
> > used
> > for loading bitstream, so the bitstream has to be loaded chunk by
> > chunk.
> > For DDR, where whole bitstream can be loaded.
> Shouldn't the logic to determine where the buffer is be in the code ?
> I mean, once you have DRAM available, you have all the malloc space,
> so
> you can use larger buffer.Why encode that knowledge into the fitImage
> ?
In previosly, we hard code the dest location for loading the core
bitstream in SPL, because by that time DDR up running, but malloc is
still pointed to OCRAM.
Now, we let user to define the dest location through the load property.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > +		};
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +		fpga-periph at 2 {
> > > > > > > > +			description = "FPGA peripheral
> > > > > > > > bitstream";
> > > > > > > > +			data =
> > > > > > > > /incbin/("../../../ghrd_10as066n2.periph.rbf");
> > > > > > > > +			type = "fpga";
> > > > > > > > +			arch = "arm";
> > > > > > > > +			compression = "none";
> > > > > > > > +		};
> > > > > > > > +	};
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +	configurations {
> > > > > > > > +		default = "config-1";
> > > > > > > > +		config-1 {
> > > > > > > > +			description = "Boot with FPGA
> > > > > > > > early IO
> > > > > > > > release config";
> > > > > > > > +			fpga = "fpga-periph at 2", "fpga-
> > > > > > > > core
> > > > > > > > @1";
> > > > > > > Don't you need to load the core first ?
> > > > > > No, the periphery is first.  This brings up the dram and
> > > > > > i/o.
> > > > > Then why do we have periph at 2 above ? Shouldn't those two
> > > > > images
> > > > > be
> > > > > swapped to make this look less confusing ?
> > > > The ordering in configuration fpga property doesn't matter, the
> > > > driver
> > > > smart enough to determine what bitstream need to be programmed
> > > > at
> > > > what
> > > > FPGA mode.
> > > Good, then please order it naturally, @1 then @2 etc .
> > Okay.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The image fpga-core at 1 is alligned at 1st just for avoiding 
> > > > the performance penalty.
> > > I thought we concluded this should be fixed elsewhere ?
> > May be we can wait until there is a solution? So user can benefit
> > the
> > good performance with this default fitIMage?
> This will only work for specific cases of specific storage devices
> and
> filesystems .
>