On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 14:44 -0700, York Sun wrote:
On 03/20/2015 02:33 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 14:23 -0700, York Sun wrote:
On 03/20/2015 02:15 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 12:21 -0700, York Sun wrote:
From: Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com
This adds NAND boot support for LS2085AQDS, using SPL framework.
To form a NAND image, append u-boot-with-spl.bin after a proper nand boot RCW and flash to the beginning of NAND.
Do we want to do it this way, or should we keep the RCW in a separate block?
I would like to see RCW in a separated block.
OK. In that case the offsets in this patch will need to change.
What constitutes a "proper nand boot RCW" (those were not my words)? There are details in this patch regarding offsets that need to match details in the PBI (which is more than just RCW).
It is not your original words. Yours was "To form a NAND image, append u-boot-with-spl.bin after PBL_0x3_0x07_1333_nand.bin and flash to the beginning of NAND.". I try to make the message generic. A proper nand boot RCW means the RCW should contains PBI commands to set bootloc and block copy the image. Since RCW is not in the scope of u-boot, I cannot refer to any specific file.
Yes, I know you can't refer to the file, but it needs to be made clear what the expectations of that PBI file are.
I think a proper solution would be to put detail instruction into board README file by adding
To form the NAND image, append u-boot-with-spl.bin after RCW image. The RCW image should have these PBI commands
CCSR 4-byte write to 0x00e00404, data=0x00000000 CCSR 4-byte write to 0x00e00400, data=0x1800a000 Block Copy: SRC=0x0104, SRC_ADDR=0x000000c0, DEST_ADDR=0x1800a000, BLOCK_SIZE=0x00014000
We need to revise the SRS_ADDR if moving u-boot to a separated block. Please advise what address is appropriate.
It should be equal to the NAND block size (not to be confused with PBI block copy size).
Please also advise the BLOCK_SIZE. Does it need to be fixed, or min(0x14000, sizeof(u-boot-spl.bin))?
It should be fixed because we don't want it to have to be updated every time the SPL build changes.
-Scott