[U-Boot] U-boot for 64bit ARMv8
Is anyone considering porting/supporting uboot for ARMv8. Our initial investigation of boot loader support for ARMv8 indicates that the only boot loader currently being targeted is UEFI.
The decisions we need to make are: - Do we move to UEFI on ARM? - Can we leverage someone else's enablement of ARMv8? - Do we provide our own enablement of ARMv8?
Any opinions?
Rich
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:10:06AM -0700, Richard Schmitt wrote:
Is anyone considering porting/supporting uboot for ARMv8. ?Our initial investigation of boot loader support for ARMv8 indicates that the only boot loader currently being targeted is UEFI. ?
The decisions we need to make are:
- Do we move to UEFI on ARM?
- Can we leverage someone else's enablement of ARMv8?
- Do we provide our own enablement of ARMv8?
Any opinions?
The general push from ARM Ltd is to use UEFI. I would strongly suspect that there are U-Boot forks that companies that have announced they are doing ARMv8 chips have something as a stop-gap until they have the functionality they want in uEFI.
I am quite open to ARMv8 support being added to U-Boot and addressing the concerns companies may have. Sometimes it seems like "GPLv2+" makes people think "Project will be moving to GPLv3, RUN AWAY!" when all it really means is "Project is GPLv2+, will evaluate the appropriateness of later versions".
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:33:39 -0400, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:10:06AM -0700, Richard Schmitt wrote:
Is anyone considering porting/supporting uboot for ARMv8. ?Our initial investigation of boot loader support for ARMv8 indicates that the only boot loader currently being targeted is UEFI. ?
The decisions we need to make are:
- Do we move to UEFI on ARM?
- Can we leverage someone else's enablement of ARMv8?
- Do we provide our own enablement of ARMv8?
Any opinions?
The general push from ARM Ltd is to use UEFI. I would strongly suspect that there are U-Boot forks that companies that have announced they are doing ARMv8 chips have something as a stop-gap until they have the functionality they want in uEFI.
I am quite open to ARMv8 support being added to U-Boot and addressing the concerns companies may have. Sometimes it seems like "GPLv2+" makes people think "Project will be moving to GPLv3, RUN AWAY!" when all it really means is "Project is GPLv2+, will evaluate the appropriateness of later versions".
This is not specific to 64-Bit ARM support, though. GPLv2+ has been there for very long. Aren't companies educated by now? (I am quite open to helping spread education, anyway)
Amicalement,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:54:54PM +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:33:39 -0400, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:10:06AM -0700, Richard Schmitt wrote:
Is anyone considering porting/supporting uboot for ARMv8. ?Our initial investigation of boot loader support for ARMv8 indicates that the only boot loader currently being targeted is UEFI. ?
The decisions we need to make are:
- Do we move to UEFI on ARM?
- Can we leverage someone else's enablement of ARMv8?
- Do we provide our own enablement of ARMv8?
Any opinions?
The general push from ARM Ltd is to use UEFI. I would strongly suspect that there are U-Boot forks that companies that have announced they are doing ARMv8 chips have something as a stop-gap until they have the functionality they want in uEFI.
I am quite open to ARMv8 support being added to U-Boot and addressing the concerns companies may have. Sometimes it seems like "GPLv2+" makes people think "Project will be moving to GPLv3, RUN AWAY!" when all it really means is "Project is GPLv2+, will evaluate the appropriateness of later versions".
This is not specific to 64-Bit ARM support, though. GPLv2+ has been there for very long. Aren't companies educated by now? (I am quite open to helping spread education, anyway)
Indeed, it applies to the project as a whole. I have however, gotten some private feedback that to me says that there are companies out there afraid that because we retain our "+" we're going to switch to GPLv3 any minute, rather than keeping our options open, should some future GPL provide a compromise both developers, companies and regular consumers can live with.
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:47:18 -0400, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:54:54PM +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:33:39 -0400, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 06:10:06AM -0700, Richard Schmitt wrote:
Is anyone considering porting/supporting uboot for ARMv8. ?Our initial investigation of boot loader support for ARMv8 indicates that the only boot loader currently being targeted is UEFI. ?
The decisions we need to make are:
- Do we move to UEFI on ARM?
- Can we leverage someone else's enablement of ARMv8?
- Do we provide our own enablement of ARMv8?
Any opinions?
The general push from ARM Ltd is to use UEFI. I would strongly suspect that there are U-Boot forks that companies that have announced they are doing ARMv8 chips have something as a stop-gap until they have the functionality they want in uEFI.
I am quite open to ARMv8 support being added to U-Boot and addressing the concerns companies may have. Sometimes it seems like "GPLv2+" makes people think "Project will be moving to GPLv3, RUN AWAY!" when all it really means is "Project is GPLv2+, will evaluate the appropriateness of later versions".
This is not specific to 64-Bit ARM support, though. GPLv2+ has been there for very long. Aren't companies educated by now? (I am quite open to helping spread education, anyway)
Indeed, it applies to the project as a whole. I have however, gotten some private feedback that to me says that there are companies out there afraid that because we retain our "+" we're going to switch to GPLv3 any minute, rather than keeping our options open, should some future GPL provide a compromise both developers, companies and regular consumers can live with.
Maybe some FAQ entry about the licence [version] on the Denx project might make things easier.
Amicalement,
Hi, experts: I found ARMv8/Exceptions.S only created a 8 items vector table.
But based on ARMv8 Arch Ref Manual, it should create 16 items in a vector table: Current Exception level with SP_EL0 : 4 items Current Exception level with SP_Elx : 4 items EL immediately lower than target_EL is using AARCH64 : 4 items EL immediately lower than target_EL is using AARCH32 : 4 items
Are current 8 items enough? Or will patch it in the future?
Best wishes,
-----Original Messages----- From: TigerLiu@viatech.com.cn Sent Time: 2014-01-23 14:44:36 (Thursday) To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Subject: [U-Boot] U-boot for 64bit ARMv8
Hi, experts: I found ARMv8/Exceptions.S only created a 8 items vector table.
But based on ARMv8 Arch Ref Manual, it should create 16 items in a vector table: Current Exception level with SP_EL0 : 4 items Current Exception level with SP_Elx : 4 items EL immediately lower than target_EL is using AARCH64 : 4 items EL immediately lower than target_EL is using AARCH32 : 4 items
Are current 8 items enough? Or will patch it in the future?
Currently, u-boot for aarch64 does not provide any run time service. So, the low level exception entries are not implemented.
Best wishes,
participants (5)
-
Albert ARIBAUD -
FengHua -
Richard Schmitt -
TigerLiu＠viatech.com.cn -
Tom Rini