Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] arm: socfpga: fix SPL booting from fpga OnChip RAM

On 10/08/2018 03:17 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:42 PM Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:

...

On 10/08/2018 06:04 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:

...

Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de mailto:marex@denx.de> schrieb am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018, 02:20:

On 10/07/2018 01:08 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> On 06.10.2018 22:38, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 10:33:42PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
>>
>>> This patch prevents disabling the FPGA bridges when
>>> SPL or U-Boot is executed from FPGA onchip RAM.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt
<simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com
<mailto:simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>> There are other patches required to make boot from
>>> FPGA work correctly:
>>> - CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE needs to be set to 0xC0000000
>>>    ideally this is done by moving SPL_TEXT_BASE to Kconfig:
>>>    https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/976918/
>>> - spl_ram.c needs this patch by Michal Simek:
>>>    https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/978694/
>>> - For U-Boot to be run from FPGA onchip RAM, either
>>>    CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_ENV_RELOC needs to be used or this patch
>>>    is required to relocate gd->env_addr:
>>>    https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/975702/
>> For the record, I'm currently reviewing the last two parts here.  The
>> first one will come soon (I do Kconfig migrations separate so I
can see
>> a lack of size change).
>
>
> OK, after Tom merged the last to parts, I can confirm I can
successfully
> boot from FPGA by adapting CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE via config and hacking
> CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE to 0xC0000000 (as moving this to Kconfig is still
> missing).

So is this patch still needed ?

Yes, sorry for being unclear there.

Can we do what this patch does with less ifdeffery ? Maybe with simple if (address > FOO && < bar) remap() ?

Hmm, I can try, but the change in misc_gen5.c depends on whether we build SPL or U-Boot, I'm not sure how to do that without ifdef...

Does 'if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SPL_BUILD))' work? Does it look nice? It's not used anywhere else like that.

That's fine, I had those address range checks in mind.