[U-Boot] [PATCH v1 0/4] arm: socfgpa: support of-platdata

[Marek Vasut]

On 1/8/19 2:07 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:58 PM Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/8/19 1:38 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:06 PM Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/8/19 7:56 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:59 PM Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/7/19 10:14 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>>>>>>> This is an initial attempt to support OF_PLATDATA for socfpga gen5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are two motivations for this:
>>>>>>> a) reduce code size to eventually support secure boot (where SPL has to
>>>>>>>    authenticate the next stage by loading/checking U-Boot from a FIT
>>>>>>>    image)
>>>>>>> b) to support the cyclone 5 boot ROM's CRC check on the SPL in SRAM
>>>>>>>    (on warm-restart), all bytes to check need to be in one piece. With
>>>>>>>    OF_SEPARATE, this is not the case (.bss is between .rodata and the
>>>>>>>    DTB). Since OF_EMBEDDED has been discouraged, OF_PLATDATA seems to
>>>>>>>    be a good solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd much prefer parsing the DT (and thus, decoupling the SW from HW)
>>>>>> than having some ad-hoc plat data again if we can avoid that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're against the whole OF_PLATDATA thing or how should I understand
>>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>> If we can avoid it, I'd prefer to do so.
>>>>
>>>>> It's not really ad-hoc, it's the DT converted to C structs. It's just in another
>>>>> format, but it's still (sort of) decoupled SW from HW.
>>>>>
>>>>> As written above, I have two goals I want to achieve with this. Right now, I
>>>>> cannot enable verified boot in SPL because the available OCRAM cannot
>>>>> hold all the code. And it seemed to me OF_PLATDATA could help me there.
>>>>
>>>> Well this might be a long shot, but I discussed this lack of OCRAM
>>>> during 35C3 and there was a suggestion to lock L2 cache lines above ROM
>>>> (so there's some backing store) and use that as extra SRAM. Would that
>>>> help you ?
>>>
>>> I would have joined that discussion if my Family would have let me go during the
>>> holidays :-))
>>>
>>> This is an interesing idea, but actually it's a lack of code/rodata
>>> size. The Intel
>>> docs clearly state that the binary SPL loaded from SPI/MMC must be 60 KiB at
>>> max. I have not checked the code size increase I would get when enabling trusted
>>> boot (SPL loading U-Boot from FIT and verifying it with a public key),
>>> but I'm currently
>>> at ~45 KiB for .text, .rodata and DTB and only 40 bytes for BSS. I'm
>>> booting from SPI.
>>> When booting from MMC, the code is about ~4 KiB smaller but BSS grows to ~600
>>> Bytes.
>>
>> I wonder if there are some huge chunks of code which could be optimized?
>>
>>> Of course the stack and initial malloc area do need some bytes too, but I think
>>> summed up, bss, stack and malloc should probably fit into 4 KiB, so I
>>> currently have
>>> about 15 KiB to add FIT loading and public key verification/hashing. I
>>> don't think that's
>>> enough just from the code size.
>>>
>>> And on socfpga, I think all added code would use the heap, which is
>>> changed to SDRAM
>>> very early, so it's not the RAM that is tight.
>>
>> Can you check readelf and see how the function size looks ? Maybe
>> there's something which is just too big ?
> 
> I'm looking at the map file all the time ;-) The only thing that looks
> too big is
> SDRAM initialization, which is about 16 KiB overall, I think. The rest
> just seems
> to be smaller parts. But the binary blob u32 arrays created by Quartus don't
> help, either: rodata is about 9 KiB.

Can that be somehow optimized ? The ideal approach would be to move it
somehow to DT.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut