On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 09:40:28PM +0000, Ryan Harkin wrote:
On 2 Dec 2016 19:20, "Tom Rini" trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 04:25:37PM +0000, Ryan Harkin wrote:
On 2 December 2016 at 15:41, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:51:07AM +0000, Ryan Harkin wrote:
I've been working with Soby Mathew to get U-Boot booting on ARM's AEMv8 FVP model in Aarch32 mode.
Soby worked out what needed to be changed and I'm refining the
changes
into patches that can be built for both Aarch64 and Aarch32 mode.
There are two patches for discussion:
[RFC PATCH 1/2] Add Aarch32 option for ARMv8 CPUs [RFC PATCH 2/2] Add vexpress_aemv8a_aarch32 variant
I expect the first patch to be controversial. I also don't expect
it to
be accepted, but to demonstrate what changes we needed to make to
get an
ARMv8 platform to boot in Aarch32 mode when selecting CPU_V7 instead
of
ARM64 as the CPU type. This in itself may be the wrong approach.
It adds an ARMV8_AARCH32 config option and some checks in generic
code
for that option to allow the code to differentiate between the two modes.
The second patch should be less controversial. It adds support for a new AEMv8 variant that runs in 32-bit mode. The most awkward part is that it defines itself not as ARM64, but as CPU_V7. I expect this to change based on feedback from patch 1/2.
The Aarch32 code runs on the same AEMv8 model as the Aarch64 code,
but
takes an extra per-core model launch parameter to switch the cores
into
Aarch32 mode, eg. "-C cluster0.cpu0.CONFIG64=0".
So my first and slightly ignorant question is, why isn't this just a
new
regular ARMv7 board being added rather than a special cased ARMv8?
That's a valid question.
I guess it could be either. At the moment, it's a bit of both. arch/arm/Kconfig says it's an ARMv7, but then it's added to board/armltd/vexpress64/Kconfig to re-use vexpress_aemv8a.h.
But there's no reason it couldn't be added to board/armlt/vexpress/Kconfig and have a copy of vexpress_aemv8a.h that isn't special cased at all. That approach seems more copy/paste-y than what I've done in this series, though.
I think the whole setup for vexpress/vexpress64 and AEMv8/Juno is confused. Really, all of these armlt boards are the same with minor variations, even if the minor variation could be ARMv7 vs ARMv8.
Maybe this gets to the heart of the problem then, and we should re-structure and fix this. If you look in board/raspberrypi/rpi/ we support rpi1 2 and 3, and that includes rpi3 in 64bit mode. So if we want to re-work board/armlt/vexpress/ to support the various ways the base hardware can be (/ has been over the years), lets. Does that sound like a plan?
Thanks, yes, it sounds like a great idea. I haven't looked at the rpi stuff yes, but I'll check it out next week.
I believe that would only resolve the issues in my 2nd patch, though. Wouldn't the generic part of using an ARMv8 CPU with the ARMv7 code still need addressing? I guess reviewing the rpi3 code will tell me more.
I think everything you need is in there somewhere as there's also a rpi3-as-32bit option.