[U-Boot] configs: move CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE to Kconfig

Thu Feb 14 18:28:18 UTC 2019

Am 19.01.2019 um 17:57 schrieb Tom Rini:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 05:52:46PM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Am Fr., 18. Jan. 2019, 23:02 hat Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> geschrieben:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:12:42AM +0100, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:13 PM Simon Goldschmidt
>>>> <simon.k.r.goldschmidt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 14.11.2018 um 19:51 schrieb Simon Goldschmidt:
>>>>>> On 07.10.2018 02:49, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 02:31:53PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moved CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE to common/spl/Kconfig with
>>>>>>>> help from moveconfig.py (only had to prepare socfpga,
>>>>>>>> stm32f746 and am33x/43x manually)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschmidt at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This patch is in preparation for boot-from-FPGA for
>>>>>>>> socfpga cyclone5, where we need a different SPL_TEXT_BASE.
>>>>>>>> By moving this to Kconfig, this can then be done via
>>>>>>>> defconfig.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did notice that some defconfig files change more than
>>>>>>>> necessary, it seems like they are out of sync?
>>>>>>> So, I see at least one set of problems with the conversion, the
>>> am33*
>>>>>>> family gets put to 0x0 which isn't right.  I'm going to pull out the
>>>>>>> print tool I made and posted a while back and use that for
>>> conversion.
>>>>>>> Thanks for the starting point!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom, what's the status on this? I still can't build an SPL for
>>> socfpga
>>>>>> gen5 boot from FPGA because I can't change SPL_TEXT_BASE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marek, if getting CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE into 2019.01 won't work, can
>>> we
>>>>>> have a separate (k)config option for socfpga only? That might be
>>> useful
>>>>>> anyway as when booting from fpga, there is no 64 KByte size limit and
>>>>>> the "magic value into magic register to unlock support for issuing
>>> warm
>>>>>> reset" must not be written as the SPL is not in SRAM. But that might
>>>>>> have its separate config option, too...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, I just need input to know in which direction I should
>>> continue.
>>>>>> I'm waiting to get all our versions of SPL and U-Boot running from
>>>>>> mainline (with only board configs added for our private boards).
>>>>>
>>>>> I still cannot build an SPL to boot from FPGA since
>>> CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
>>>>> is hard-coded to OnChip RAM (while when booting from FPGA, it has to be
>>>>> placed into the FPGA bridge).
>>>>>
>>>>> Since both Tom and myself did not seem to have immediate luck with
>>>>> bringing CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE to Kconfig, may I suggest to add a
>>> Kconfig
>>>>> option 'Boot from FPGA' for socfpga_gen5?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or do you have another idea at hand of how to proceed here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that there might be other settings that may change when
>>>>> booting from FPGA, e.g. the maximum code size for SPL is not limited
>>> any
>>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> Gentle ping?
>>>>
>>>> I'd really like to get boot-from-FPGA finally working in the next
>>> release!
>>>
>>> So, migrating CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE.  A problem is that we don't get the
>>> value for CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE, only CONFIG_TEXT_BASE, once we move it
>>> to Kconfig and are building non-SPL.  This is a problem for the TI K2
>>> boards.  This however can be fixed by leveraging Andrew's patch[1] as
>>> "ISW" is just a generic term and we can set that on the K2 platforms and
>>> adjust CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR to use that.  Next, rockchip rk3368 needs
>>> to be updated to make use of CONFIG_TPL_TEXT_BASE via Kconfig, which
>>> exists already, rather than the workaround it's doing.  Finally, some
>>> PowerPC boards that are using TPL are in a similar spot where they also
>>> need to use CONFIG_TPL_TEXT_BASE and are using the mechanic where we'll
>>> pass SPL_TEXT_BASE in TPL, if TPL_TEXT_BASE isn't set.
>>>
>>> So, what's all this mean?  Well, the rockchip issue looks pretty easy to
>>> deal with and verify, so I'll tackle that first and post something
>>> shortly.  The PowerPC thing also doesn't look too terrible (it's only a
>>> few headers) so I'll tackle that second.  And then the TI one I'll work
>>> on 3rd, after I get Andrew's patch merged in, which should be fairly
>>> soon (v3 fixed a small issue I found when merging v2).
>>>
>>> [1]: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1026946/
>>
>>
>> So I'm still kind of waiting for this to get socfpga booting from fpga (at
>> least gen5 needs a special linker address for spl to boot from fpga).
>>
>> Do you think this will make it for 2019.04? Because if not, I'll try to
>> convince Marek to add an socfpga-specific kconfig option "boot from fpga"
>> to finally get this working...
> 
> Good question.  I kicked this around, harder, after posting.  I have a
> re-work of how we generate {spl,tpl}/u-boot-spl.lds which deletes the
> Rockchip u-boot-tpl.lds scripts (their functionality goes more broadly
> available and is generic) and reworks PowerPC so that we don't need to
> abuse CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE for CONFIG_TPL_TEXT_BASE.  The only real
> "big" thing that got exposed is that for the 32bit Rockchip platform
> that uses TPL, it wasn't defining a maximum size.  With that
> information, I think I could get comfortable doing a before/after test
> here since if we save off the u-boot-spl.lds files a quick cmp will show
> if any changed.

And another gentle ping on this.

Now that the series you mentioned above [1] has been merged, do you 
still plan to get CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE into Kconfig for 2019.04? Or is 
it too late for that now, since rc1 has already been released?

[1] 
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=87636&submitter=&state=*&q=&archive=both&delegate=

Regards,
Simon