On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 13:09 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
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@intel.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Tien Fong Chee tien.fong.chee@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 ?
This patch can be dropped. But i don't know it is good idea to reserve the patch 5-8, this would be easier for user to enable CONFIG_SPL_FIT in future.