[U-Boot] [PATCH] soc: zynqmp: Update required API version to 1.0
From: Rajan Vaja rajan.vaja@xilinx.com
Existing EEMI version is to as 1.0 (available from xilinx v2018.1 version). Update required API version to match with EEMI API version.
New PMUFW version is required for operations with programmable logic.
Signed-off-by: Rajan Vaja rajanv@xilinx.com Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com ---
arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c index 792a3e1b655f..e122be59c747 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c @@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ int __maybe_unused invoke_smc(u32 pm_api_id, u32 arg0, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
#define ZYNQMP_SIP_SVC_GET_API_VERSION 0xC2000001
-#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR 0 -#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR 3 +#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR 1 +#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR 0 #define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 16 #define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR_MASK 0xFFFF
On 05/14/2018 03:39 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
From: Rajan Vaja rajan.vaja@xilinx.com
Existing EEMI version is to as 1.0 (available from xilinx v2018.1 version). Update required API version to match with EEMI API version.
Not sure I understand this sentence.
New PMUFW version is required for operations with programmable logic.
Seems the meta-xilinx 2018.1 comes with PMUFW 2017.3 https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx/tree/rel-v2018.1/meta-xilinx-bsp/recip...
Is this out of date ?
Signed-off-by: Rajan Vaja rajanv@xilinx.com Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com
arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c index 792a3e1b655f..e122be59c747 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c @@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ int __maybe_unused invoke_smc(u32 pm_api_id, u32 arg0, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
#define ZYNQMP_SIP_SVC_GET_API_VERSION 0xC2000001
-#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR 0 -#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR 3 +#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR 1 +#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR 0 #define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 16 #define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR_MASK 0xFFFF
On 14.5.2018 22:55, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 05/14/2018 03:39 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
From: Rajan Vaja rajan.vaja@xilinx.com
Existing EEMI version is to as 1.0 (available from xilinx v2018.1 version). Update required API version to match with EEMI API version.
Not sure I understand this sentence.
PMUFW contains EEMI api which has also changed and the biggest reason for bumping up PMUFW version were changes in EEMI api. And these versions are also aligned.
Thanks, Michal
On 05/17/2018 03:59 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
On 14.5.2018 22:55, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 05/14/2018 03:39 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
From: Rajan Vaja rajan.vaja@xilinx.com
Existing EEMI version is to as 1.0 (available from xilinx v2018.1 version). Update required API version to match with EEMI API version.
Not sure I understand this sentence.
PMUFW contains EEMI api which has also changed and the biggest reason for bumping up PMUFW version were changes in EEMI api. And these versions are also aligned.
So uh, the meta-xilinx 2018.1 release which contains pmufw 2017.3 uses the new API 1.0 , while meta-xilinx 2018.1 release which contains pmufw 2017.3 as well does not use the API 1.0 ? I think the versioning is a complete CF then ...
Hi Marek,
-----Original Message----- From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex@denx.de] Sent: 15 May 2018 02:26 AM To: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Rajan Vaja RAJANV@xilinx.com; monstr@monstr.eu; Albert Aribaud albert.u.boot@aribaud.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: zynqmp: Update required API version to 1.0
On 05/14/2018 03:39 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
From: Rajan Vaja rajan.vaja@xilinx.com
Existing EEMI version is to as 1.0 (available from xilinx v2018.1 version). Update required API version to match with EEMI API version.
Not sure I understand this sentence.
New PMUFW version is required for operations with programmable logic.
Seems the meta-xilinx 2018.1 comes with PMUFW 2017.3 https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx/tree/rel-v2018.1/meta-xilinx- bsp/recipes-bsp/pmu-firmware
Is this out of date ?
[Rajan] PMU firmware is built using meta-xilinx-tools layer and not meta-xilinx-bsp. The recipe in meta-xilinx-bsp is to build OSL flow (using multilib) this is not recommended nor supported from Xilinx.
Signed-off-by: Rajan Vaja rajanv@xilinx.com Signed-off-by: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com
arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c
b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c
index 792a3e1b655f..e122be59c747 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv8/zynqmp/cpu.c @@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ int __maybe_unused invoke_smc(u32 pm_api_id,
u32 arg0, u32 arg1, u32 arg2,
#define ZYNQMP_SIP_SVC_GET_API_VERSION 0xC2000001
-#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR 0 -#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR 3 +#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR 1 +#define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR 0 #define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 16 #define ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR_MASK 0xFFFF
-- Best regards, Marek Vasut
On 05/21/2018 06:53 AM, Rajan Vaja wrote:
Hi Marek,
-----Original Message----- From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex@denx.de] Sent: 15 May 2018 02:26 AM To: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Rajan Vaja RAJANV@xilinx.com; monstr@monstr.eu; Albert Aribaud albert.u.boot@aribaud.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: zynqmp: Update required API version to 1.0
On 05/14/2018 03:39 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
From: Rajan Vaja rajan.vaja@xilinx.com
Existing EEMI version is to as 1.0 (available from xilinx v2018.1 version). Update required API version to match with EEMI API version.
Not sure I understand this sentence.
New PMUFW version is required for operations with programmable logic.
Seems the meta-xilinx 2018.1 comes with PMUFW 2017.3 https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx/tree/rel-v2018.1/meta-xilinx- bsp/recipes-bsp/pmu-firmware
Is this out of date ?
[Rajan] PMU firmware is built using meta-xilinx-tools layer and not meta-xilinx-bsp. The recipe in meta-xilinx-bsp is to build OSL flow (using multilib) this is not recommended nor supported from Xilinx.
Ah, I see, so there are three versions of pmu-firmware in a single release, but the one which is actually needed for the system to boot correctly is not in the meta-xilinx repo as one would expect, but in some other repo. That ... doesn't make any sense, but so be it.
So it's this pmu-firmware_git recipe which provides different ABI in different versions of meta-xilinx-bsp, yet this is not in any way indicated by the package version, right ?
Also, do I understand it correctly that Xilinx doesn't support arm64 with multilib?
Hi Marek,
-----Original Message----- From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex@denx.de] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:45 AM To: Rajan Vaja RAJANV@xilinx.com Cc: monstr@monstr.eu; Albert Aribaud albert.u.boot@aribaud.net; Manjukumar Harthikote Matha MANJUKUM@xilinx.com; Jolly Shah JOLLYS@xilinx.com; Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com; u- boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: zynqmp: Update required API version to 1.0
On 05/21/2018 06:53 AM, Rajan Vaja wrote:
Hi Marek,
-----Original Message----- From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex@denx.de] Sent: 15 May 2018 02:26 AM To: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Rajan Vaja RAJANV@xilinx.com; monstr@monstr.eu; Albert Aribaud albert.u.boot@aribaud.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: zynqmp: Update required API version to 1.0
On 05/14/2018 03:39 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
From: Rajan Vaja rajan.vaja@xilinx.com
Existing EEMI version is to as 1.0 (available from xilinx v2018.1 version). Update required API version to match with EEMI API version.
Not sure I understand this sentence.
New PMUFW version is required for operations with programmable logic.
Seems the meta-xilinx 2018.1 comes with PMUFW 2017.3 https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx/tree/rel-v2018.1/meta-xilinx- bsp/recipes-bsp/pmu-firmware
Is this out of date ?
[Rajan] PMU firmware is built using meta-xilinx-tools layer and not meta-xilinx-
bsp.
The recipe in meta-xilinx-bsp is to build OSL flow (using multilib) this is not
recommended nor supported from Xilinx.
Ah, I see, so there are three versions of pmu-firmware in a single release, but the one which is actually needed for the system to boot correctly is not in the meta-xilinx repo as one would expect, but in some other repo. That ... doesn't make any sense, but so be it.
If you are planning to use rel-v2018.x Xilinx tools release branches, stick with all the layers provided by Xilinx. The same is documented in wiki as well
http://www.wiki.xilinx.com/How%20to%20build%20images%20through%20yocto
If you want to use Yocto open-source release stick with branches likes rocko, morty etc. These branches will not have dependencies on Xilinx tools.
So it's this pmu-firmware_git recipe which provides different ABI in different versions of meta-xilinx-bsp, yet this is not in any way indicated by the package version, right ?
Didn’t get what you mean here? Package version is set according to the release under use https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx-tools/blob/master/classes/xsctapp.bbcl...
This should indicate, release version with a part of commit id of git being used.
Also, do I understand it correctly that Xilinx doesn't support arm64 with multilib?
Yes Xilinx does not support multilib way of building PMUFW. The official support is in meta-xilinx-tools layer with a dependency on xsct tool
Thanks, Manju
On 05/21/2018 06:27 PM, Manjukumar Harthikote Matha wrote:
[...]
Ah, I see, so there are three versions of pmu-firmware in a single release, but the one which is actually needed for the system to boot correctly is not in the meta-xilinx repo as one would expect, but in some other repo. That ... doesn't make any sense, but so be it.
If you are planning to use rel-v2018.x Xilinx tools release branches, stick with all the layers provided by Xilinx. The same is documented in wiki as well
http://www.wiki.xilinx.com/How%20to%20build%20images%20through%20yocto
If you want to use Yocto open-source release stick with branches likes rocko, morty etc. These branches will not have dependencies on Xilinx tools.
I think you missed my point, there are three different PMUFW recipes in those metalayers. The only one that matters is not in the BSP layer, which makes no sense to me, but so be it.
btw I presume you do mean OpenEmbedded.
So it's this pmu-firmware_git recipe which provides different ABI in different versions of meta-xilinx-bsp, yet this is not in any way indicated by the package version, right ?
Didn’t get what you mean here? Package version is set according to the release under use https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx-tools/blob/master/classes/xsctapp.bbcl...
Ah, I see, so unlike any other regular recipe which encodes the version in the recipe file name, Xilinx stuff has custom class which is inherited into version-less recipe and sets the version. This is horrid.
This should indicate, release version with a part of commit id of git being used.
Right ...
Also, do I understand it correctly that Xilinx doesn't support arm64 with multilib?
Yes Xilinx does not support multilib way of building PMUFW
What are you talking about ? PMUFW is microblaze, which doesn't do multilib in the first place.
. The official support is in meta-xilinx-tools layer with a dependency on xsct tool
Which btw is violating OE assumption that no host tools are pulled into the build, so this whole thing is broken.
-----Original Message----- From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex@denx.de] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 9:47 AM To: Manjukumar Harthikote Matha MANJUKUM@xilinx.com; Rajan Vaja RAJANV@xilinx.com Cc: monstr@monstr.eu; Albert Aribaud albert.u.boot@aribaud.net; Jolly Shah JOLLYS@xilinx.com; Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com; u- boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: zynqmp: Update required API version to 1.0
On 05/21/2018 06:27 PM, Manjukumar Harthikote Matha wrote:
[...]
Ah, I see, so there are three versions of pmu-firmware in a single release, but the one which is actually needed for the system to boot correctly is not in the meta-xilinx repo as one would expect, but in some other repo. That ... doesn't make any sense, but so be it.
If you are planning to use rel-v2018.x Xilinx tools release branches, stick with all the layers provided by Xilinx. The same is documented in wiki as well
http://www.wiki.xilinx.com/How%20to%20build%20images%20through%20yoct o
If you want to use Yocto open-source release stick with branches likes rocko,
morty etc. These branches will not have dependencies on Xilinx tools.
I think you missed my point, there are three different PMUFW recipes in those metalayers. The only one that matters is not in the BSP layer, which makes no sense to me, but so be it.
AFAIK, there are two. One in meta-xilinx-bsp and other in meta-xilinx-tools. You can use PREFERRED_PROVIDER to switch between the two in your distro.
I still don’t think you get the difference between Xilinx tools releases from Github and upstream Yocto project repository. See http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/
Also note that none of the Xilinx tool release branches are present at http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/
The thing that matters to you is pmu-firmware recipe in meta-xilinx-bsp. The recipe is present and based on 2017.3 in master and Rocko. Stick with Rocko branch till the next release,Sumo branch is cut, which will get 2018.1 version.
btw I presume you do mean OpenEmbedded.
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/
So it's this pmu-firmware_git recipe which provides different ABI in different versions of meta-xilinx-bsp, yet this is not in any way indicated by the package version, right ?
Didn’t get what you mean here? Package version is set according to the release under use https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx-tools/blob/master/classes/xsctap p.bbclass#L9
Ah, I see, so unlike any other regular recipe which encodes the version in the recipe file name, Xilinx stuff has custom class which is inherited into version-less recipe and sets the version. This is horrid.
Not true, any recipe which includes version can be in an include file or in a class or in a conf file. There is no strict guidelines on where this version should be set (recipe, include, conf or class). Just because you are familiar with one way of doing things, does not mean everything else is horrid.
This should indicate, release version with a part of commit id of git being used.
Right ...
Also, do I understand it correctly that Xilinx doesn't support arm64 with multilib?
Yes Xilinx does not support multilib way of building PMUFW
What are you talking about ? PMUFW is microblaze, which doesn't do multilib in the first place.
Exactly, when you are building for zynqmp (zcu102 board), it is aarch64. Yocto build system needs to understand mixed architectures when building in the same project, hence the use of multilib to be build PMUFW.
. The official support is in meta-xilinx-tools layer with a dependency on xsct tool
Which btw is violating OE assumption that no host tools are pulled into the build, so this whole thing is broken.
It is part of Xilinx tool release, if you don’t need it, don’t use it.
Thanks, Manju
On 05/21/2018 11:26 PM, Manjukumar Harthikote Matha wrote: [...]
Ah, I see, so there are three versions of pmu-firmware in a single release, but the one which is actually needed for the system to boot correctly is not in the meta-xilinx repo as one would expect, but in some other repo. That ... doesn't make any sense, but so be it.
If you are planning to use rel-v2018.x Xilinx tools release branches, stick with all the layers provided by Xilinx. The same is documented in wiki as well
http://www.wiki.xilinx.com/How%20to%20build%20images%20through%20yoct o
If you want to use Yocto open-source release stick with branches likes rocko,
morty etc. These branches will not have dependencies on Xilinx tools.
I think you missed my point, there are three different PMUFW recipes in those metalayers. The only one that matters is not in the BSP layer, which makes no sense to me, but so be it.
AFAIK, there are two. One in meta-xilinx-bsp and other in meta-xilinx-tools. You can use PREFERRED_PROVIDER to switch between the two in your distro.
I still don’t think you get the difference between Xilinx tools releases from Github and upstream Yocto project repository. See http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/
Do I understand it correctly that you have two repositories with the same name, but with different content ? Talk about confusing. Assume I use the meta-xilinx stuff from github/xilinx.
Also note that none of the Xilinx tool release branches are present at http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/
The thing that matters to you is pmu-firmware recipe in meta-xilinx-bsp. The recipe is present and based on 2017.3 in master and Rocko. Stick with Rocko branch till the next release,Sumo branch is cut, which will get 2018.1 version.
Ah, I see.
So I should use this pmu-firmware from meta-xilinx-bsp rel-v2018.1 (the one on github, not the one on git.yoctoproject) without version which provides the ABI 1.0 rather than the v2017.03 one from meta-xilinx rel-v2018.1. And then the new release of meta-xilinx rel-v2018.2 will get PMUFW v2018.1 .
But why is such vital component as the working PMUFW recipe stashed in some other repo than meta-xilinx , while meta-xilinx contains a non working one is not clear to me. Anyway.
It is also becoming less and less clear to me which PMUFW provides which ABI based on the recipe versions, since they do not reflect the ABI in any way. And, back to my original question-ish, there is an ABI break between PMUFW v0.3 and PMUFW v1.0 which may render systems unbootable if everything is not updated in tandem, right ?
btw I presume you do mean OpenEmbedded.
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/
So it's this pmu-firmware_git recipe which provides different ABI in different versions of meta-xilinx-bsp, yet this is not in any way indicated by the package version, right ?
Didn’t get what you mean here? Package version is set according to the release under use https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx-tools/blob/master/classes/xsctap p.bbclass#L9
Ah, I see, so unlike any other regular recipe which encodes the version in the recipe file name, Xilinx stuff has custom class which is inherited into version-less recipe and sets the version. This is horrid.
Not true, any recipe which includes version can be in an include file or in a class or in a conf file. There is no strict guidelines on where this version should be set (recipe, include, conf or class). Just because you are familiar with one way of doing things, does not mean everything else is horrid.
Well, I think I've seen my share of recipes over the years, both good and bad. OE gives the user a lot of freedom to do all kinds of hacks, which still doesn't mean it's a good idea to do them.
Writing your own bbclass as a sort-of header file to be included by a recipe is one of the bad ideas. With the ABI break at hand, there is also no migration strategy for this PMUFW recipe, the platform just breaks during the update and stops booting or misbehaves, which is grueling.
This should indicate, release version with a part of commit id of git being used.
Right ...
Also, do I understand it correctly that Xilinx doesn't support arm64 with multilib?
Yes Xilinx does not support multilib way of building PMUFW
What are you talking about ? PMUFW is microblaze, which doesn't do multilib in the first place.
Exactly, when you are building for zynqmp (zcu102 board)
No, I am not building for zcu102.
, it is aarch64. Yocto build system needs to understand mixed architectures when building in the same project, hence the use of multilib to be build PMUFW.
But you never build the microblaze toolchain, so how do you use multilib here at all ? From what I see, the pmu-firmware is compiled with toolchain referenced from outside of the OE build, in fact from vivado, see my comment below from using external tools like that.
. The official support is in meta-xilinx-tools layer with a dependency on xsct tool
Which btw is violating OE assumption that no host tools are pulled into the build, so this whole thing is broken.
It is part of Xilinx tool release, if you don’t need it, don’t use it.
The meta-xilinx-tools bbclasses are calling those tools, thus violating that assumption, so if I want to get a working result, I effectively cannot.
Hi Marek,
-----Original Message----- From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex@denx.de] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 4:28 AM To: Manjukumar Harthikote Matha MANJUKUM@xilinx.com; Rajan Vaja RAJANV@xilinx.com Cc: monstr@monstr.eu; Albert Aribaud albert.u.boot@aribaud.net; Jolly Shah JOLLYS@xilinx.com; Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com; u- boot@lists.denx.de; Moritz Fischer moritz.fischer@ettus.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: zynqmp: Update required API version to 1.0
On 05/21/2018 11:26 PM, Manjukumar Harthikote Matha wrote: [...]
Ah, I see, so there are three versions of pmu-firmware in a single release, but the one which is actually needed for the system to boot correctly is not in the meta-xilinx repo as one would expect, but in some other repo. That ... doesn't make any sense, but so be it.
If you are planning to use rel-v2018.x Xilinx tools release branches, stick with all the layers provided by Xilinx. The same is documented in wiki as well
http://www.wiki.xilinx.com/How%20to%20build%20images%20through%20yoct
o
If you want to use Yocto open-source release stick with branches likes rocko,
morty etc. These branches will not have dependencies on Xilinx tools.
I think you missed my point, there are three different PMUFW recipes in those metalayers. The only one that matters is not in the BSP layer, which makes no sense to me, but so be it.
AFAIK, there are two. One in meta-xilinx-bsp and other in meta-xilinx-tools. You
can use PREFERRED_PROVIDER to switch between the two in your distro.
I still don’t think you get the difference between Xilinx tools releases from
Github and upstream Yocto project repository.
Do I understand it correctly that you have two repositories with the same name, but with different content ? Talk about confusing. Assume I use the meta-xilinx stuff from github/xilinx.
Also note that none of the Xilinx tool release branches are present at
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/
The thing that matters to you is pmu-firmware recipe in meta-xilinx-bsp. The
recipe is present and based on 2017.3 in master and Rocko. Stick with Rocko branch till the next release,Sumo branch is cut, which will get 2018.1 version.
Ah, I see.
So I should use this pmu-firmware from meta-xilinx-bsp rel-v2018.1 (the one on github, not the one on git.yoctoproject) without version which provides the ABI 1.0 rather than the v2017.03 one from meta-xilinx rel-v2018.1. And then the new release of meta-xilinx rel-v2018.2 will get PMUFW v2018.1 .
But why is such vital component as the working PMUFW recipe stashed in some other repo than meta-xilinx , while meta-xilinx contains a non working one is not clear to me. Anyway.
Release branches in github are related to Xilinx tools release to support PetaLinux, xsct etc The flow using github release uses a layer stack and how to use is documented here http://www.wiki.xilinx.com/How%20to%20build%20images%20through%20yocto and manifest is here https://github.com/Xilinx/yocto-manifests/tree/rel-v2018.1
We don’t support a flow where you use only one layer instead of the entire stack.
It is also becoming less and less clear to me which PMUFW provides which ABI based on the recipe versions, since they do not reflect the ABI in any way. And, back to my original question-ish, there is an ABI break between PMUFW v0.3 and PMUFW v1.0 which may render systems unbootable if everything is not updated in tandem, right ?
I was not aware of the breakage, I will have to check.
If you use our entire layer stack for rel-v2018.1 (manifest) then you shouldn’t see the issue.
As far as master branch is considred, we are in process of updating it for sumo release. If you are on mailing list, you will see the patches sent for review and is on 4th version. We hope to get it merged if there are no hiccups by end of week. See : https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-xilinx/2018-May/003838.html See: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-xilinx/2018-May/003841.html
btw I presume you do mean OpenEmbedded.
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/
So it's this pmu-firmware_git recipe which provides different ABI in different versions of meta-xilinx-bsp, yet this is not in any way indicated by the package version, right ?
Didn’t get what you mean here? Package version is set according to the release under use https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx-tools/blob/master/classes/xsctap p.bbclass#L9
Ah, I see, so unlike any other regular recipe which encodes the version in the recipe file name, Xilinx stuff has custom class which is inherited into version-
less
recipe and sets the version. This is horrid.
Not true, any recipe which includes version can be in an include file or in a class
or in a conf file.
There is no strict guidelines on where this version should be set (recipe, include,
conf or class).
Just because you are familiar with one way of doing things, does not mean
everything else is horrid.
Well, I think I've seen my share of recipes over the years, both good and bad. OE gives the user a lot of freedom to do all kinds of hacks, which still doesn't mean it's a good idea to do them.
Writing your own bbclass as a sort-of header file to be included by a recipe is one of the bad ideas. With the ABI break at hand, there is also no migration strategy for this PMUFW recipe, the platform just breaks during the update and stops booting or misbehaves, which is grueling.
The same class is shared for multiple components, FSBL, DTG etc hence the reasoning to use a class However, this something for us to consider and work in future releases.
This should indicate, release version with a part of commit id of git being
used.
Right ...
Also, do I understand it correctly that Xilinx doesn't support arm64 with multilib?
Yes Xilinx does not support multilib way of building PMUFW
What are you talking about ? PMUFW is microblaze, which doesn't do multilib
in
the first place.
Exactly, when you are building for zynqmp (zcu102 board)
No, I am not building for zcu102.
, it is aarch64. Yocto build system needs to understand mixed architectures when
building in the same project, hence the use of multilib to be build PMUFW.
But you never build the microblaze toolchain, so how do you use multilib here at all ? From what I see, the pmu-firmware is compiled with toolchain referenced from outside of the OE build, in fact from vivado, see my comment below from using external tools like that.
I am not sure how your dependencies are wired in: We have a dependency like this for zcu102 http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/tree/meta-xilinx-bsp/conf/m...
If you are using meta-xilinx-bsp rocko/master branch, it uses multilib builds the MB toolchain using newlib and libgloss to build pmufw http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/tree/meta-xilinx-bsp/classe... http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/tree/meta-xilinx-bsp/recipe...
. The official support is in meta-xilinx-tools layer with a dependency on xsct tool
Which btw is violating OE assumption that no host tools are pulled into the
build,
so this whole thing is broken.
It is part of Xilinx tool release, if you don’t need it, don’t use it.
The meta-xilinx-tools bbclasses are calling those tools, thus violating that assumption, so if I want to get a working result, I effectively cannot.
To summarize:
There are two workflows 1) Using Xilinx tool releases from github (branches like: rel-v2018.1, rel-v2017.4 etc) 2) Using upstream only layer http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/ (branches like: rocko, morty etc)
If you are using (1) : ----------------------------------- Use the manifest https://github.com/Xilinx/yocto-manifests/tree/rel-v2018.1
See some documentation here http://www.wiki.xilinx.com/How%20to%20build%20images%20through%20yocto
We also need xsct to be installed for this method.
If you just use meta-xilinx rel-v2018.1 branch alone without meta-xilinx-tools and meta-petalinux, this is not supported. We support the layer stack we publish at this point of time.
If you are using (2) : ----------------------------------- You will not have dependency on Xilinx tools. Bootloader is from u-boot SPL and PMUFW built using multilib. There might be gaps on certain boot methods. There are community based solutions available. Latest release branch is rocko, sumo release will be mid-June.
You pick your workflow and use them according to your needs.
One more thing, I am not sure how your layer stack is or was used earlier, because rel-v2017.x branch never supported building pmu-fw. If you did not use rel-v2017.x branches earlier then you should have used morty/rocko branch from upstream (it's my guess).
Thanks, Manju
On 05/22/2018 06:44 PM, Manjukumar Harthikote Matha wrote: [...]
So I should use this pmu-firmware from meta-xilinx-bsp rel-v2018.1 (the one on github, not the one on git.yoctoproject) without version which provides the ABI 1.0 rather than the v2017.03 one from meta-xilinx rel-v2018.1. And then the new release of meta-xilinx rel-v2018.2 will get PMUFW v2018.1 .
But why is such vital component as the working PMUFW recipe stashed in some other repo than meta-xilinx , while meta-xilinx contains a non working one is not clear to me. Anyway.
Release branches in github are related to Xilinx tools release to support PetaLinux, xsct etc The flow using github release uses a layer stack and how to use is documented here http://www.wiki.xilinx.com/How%20to%20build%20images%20through%20yocto and manifest is here https://github.com/Xilinx/yocto-manifests/tree/rel-v2018.1
We don’t support a flow where you use only one layer instead of the entire stack.
Then the obvious question is, why is it not a single metalayer ...
It is also becoming less and less clear to me which PMUFW provides which ABI based on the recipe versions, since they do not reflect the ABI in any way. And, back to my original question-ish, there is an ABI break between PMUFW v0.3 and PMUFW v1.0 which may render systems unbootable if everything is not updated in tandem, right ?
I was not aware of the breakage, I will have to check.
Try using mainline U-Boot 2018.05 with PMUFW v0.3 and load FPGA image from U-Boot, it'll fail.
If you use our entire layer stack for rel-v2018.1 (manifest) then you shouldn’t see the issue.
As far as master branch is considred, we are in process of updating it for sumo release. If you are on mailing list, you will see the patches sent for review and is on 4th version. We hope to get it merged if there are no hiccups by end of week. See : https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-xilinx/2018-May/003838.html See: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-xilinx/2018-May/003841.html
Great
btw I presume you do mean OpenEmbedded.
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/
So it's this pmu-firmware_git recipe which provides different ABI in different versions of meta-xilinx-bsp, yet this is not in any way indicated by the package version, right ?
Didn’t get what you mean here? Package version is set according to the release under use https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx-tools/blob/master/classes/xsctap p.bbclass#L9
Ah, I see, so unlike any other regular recipe which encodes the version in the recipe file name, Xilinx stuff has custom class which is inherited into version-
less
recipe and sets the version. This is horrid.
Not true, any recipe which includes version can be in an include file or in a class
or in a conf file.
There is no strict guidelines on where this version should be set (recipe, include,
conf or class).
Just because you are familiar with one way of doing things, does not mean
everything else is horrid.
Well, I think I've seen my share of recipes over the years, both good and bad. OE gives the user a lot of freedom to do all kinds of hacks, which still doesn't mean it's a good idea to do them.
Writing your own bbclass as a sort-of header file to be included by a recipe is one of the bad ideas. With the ABI break at hand, there is also no migration strategy for this PMUFW recipe, the platform just breaks during the update and stops booting or misbehaves, which is grueling.
The same class is shared for multiple components, FSBL, DTG etc hence the reasoning to use a class However, this something for us to consider and work in future releases.
This seems to be long overdue
This should indicate, release version with a part of commit id of git being
used.
Right ...
Also, do I understand it correctly that Xilinx doesn't support arm64 with multilib?
Yes Xilinx does not support multilib way of building PMUFW
What are you talking about ? PMUFW is microblaze, which doesn't do multilib
in
the first place.
Exactly, when you are building for zynqmp (zcu102 board)
No, I am not building for zcu102.
, it is aarch64. Yocto build system needs to understand mixed architectures when
building in the same project, hence the use of multilib to be build PMUFW.
But you never build the microblaze toolchain, so how do you use multilib here at all ? From what I see, the pmu-firmware is compiled with toolchain referenced from outside of the OE build, in fact from vivado, see my comment below from using external tools like that.
I am not sure how your dependencies are wired in: We have a dependency like this for zcu102 http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/tree/meta-xilinx-bsp/conf/m...
If you are using meta-xilinx-bsp rocko/master branch, it uses multilib builds the MB toolchain using newlib and libgloss to build pmufw http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/tree/meta-xilinx-bsp/classe... http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/tree/meta-xilinx-bsp/recipe...
I think I mentioned it before, but I am using the repo from github. That one does NOT build microblaze toolchain to compile pmufw.
[...]
-----Original Message----- From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex@denx.de] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 2:49 AM To: Manjukumar Harthikote Matha MANJUKUM@xilinx.com; Rajan Vaja RAJANV@xilinx.com Cc: monstr@monstr.eu; Albert Aribaud albert.u.boot@aribaud.net; Jolly Shah JOLLYS@xilinx.com; Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com; u- boot@lists.denx.de; Moritz Fischer moritz.fischer@ettus.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: zynqmp: Update required API version to 1.0
On 05/22/2018 06:44 PM, Manjukumar Harthikote Matha wrote: [...]
So I should use this pmu-firmware from meta-xilinx-bsp rel-v2018.1 (the one on github, not the one on git.yoctoproject) without version which provides the ABI 1.0 rather than the v2017.03 one from meta-xilinx rel-v2018.1. And then the new release of meta-xilinx rel-v2018.2 will get PMUFW v2018.1 .
But why is such vital component as the working PMUFW recipe stashed in some other repo than meta-xilinx , while meta-xilinx contains a non working one is not clear to me. Anyway.
Release branches in github are related to Xilinx tools release to support PetaLinux, xsct etc The flow using github release uses a layer stack and how to use is documented here
http://www.wiki.xilinx.com/How%20to%20build%20images%20through%20yoct o
and manifest is here https://github.com/Xilinx/yocto-manifests/tree/rel-v2018.1
We don’t support a flow where you use only one layer instead of the entire
stack.
Then the obvious question is, why is it not a single metalayer ...
The proposal was sent out, there are dependencies on why the merge has not happened https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-xilinx/2017-November/003309.ht...
We plan to resolve in the next release (Thud)
It is also becoming less and less clear to me which PMUFW provides which ABI based on the recipe versions, since they do not reflect the ABI in any way. And, back to my original question-ish, there is an ABI break between PMUFW v0.3 and PMUFW v1.0 which may render systems unbootable if everything is not updated in tandem, right ?
I was not aware of the breakage, I will have to check.
Try using mainline U-Boot 2018.05 with PMUFW v0.3 and load FPGA image from U-Boot, it'll fail.
If you use our entire layer stack for rel-v2018.1 (manifest) then you shouldn’t
see the issue.
As far as master branch is considred, we are in process of updating it for sumo
release.
If you are on mailing list, you will see the patches sent for review and is on 4th
version.
We hope to get it merged if there are no hiccups by end of week. See : https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-xilinx/2018-May/003838.h tml See: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-xilinx/2018-May/003841.h tml
Great
btw I presume you do mean OpenEmbedded.
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/
> So it's this pmu-firmware_git recipe which provides different ABI > in different versions of meta-xilinx-bsp, yet this is not in any > way indicated by the package version, right ?
Didn’t get what you mean here? Package version is set according to the release under use https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx-tools/blob/master/classes/xs ctap p.bbclass#L9
Ah, I see, so unlike any other regular recipe which encodes the version in the recipe file name, Xilinx stuff has custom class which is inherited into version-
less
recipe and sets the version. This is horrid.
Not true, any recipe which includes version can be in an include file or in a class
or in a conf file.
There is no strict guidelines on where this version should be set (recipe, include,
conf or class).
Just because you are familiar with one way of doing things, does not mean
everything else is horrid.
Well, I think I've seen my share of recipes over the years, both good and bad. OE gives the user a lot of freedom to do all kinds of hacks, which still doesn't mean it's a good idea to do them.
Writing your own bbclass as a sort-of header file to be included by a recipe is one of the bad ideas. With the ABI break at hand, there is also no migration strategy for this PMUFW recipe, the platform just breaks during the update and stops booting or misbehaves, which is grueling.
The same class is shared for multiple components, FSBL, DTG etc hence the reasoning to use a class However, this something for us to consider and
work in future releases.
This seems to be long overdue
Debatable according to me.
This should indicate, release version with a part of commit id of git being
used.
Right ...
> Also, do I understand it correctly that Xilinx doesn't support > arm64 with multilib? >
Yes Xilinx does not support multilib way of building PMUFW
What are you talking about ? PMUFW is microblaze, which doesn't do multilib
in
the first place.
Exactly, when you are building for zynqmp (zcu102 board)
No, I am not building for zcu102.
, it is aarch64. Yocto build system needs to understand mixed architectures when
building in the same project, hence the use of multilib to be build PMUFW.
But you never build the microblaze toolchain, so how do you use multilib here at all ? From what I see, the pmu-firmware is compiled with toolchain referenced from outside of the OE build, in fact from vivado, see my comment below from using external tools like that.
I am not sure how your dependencies are wired in: We have a dependency like this for zcu102 http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/tree/meta-xilinx-bsp/ conf/machine/zcu102-zynqmp.conf#n34
If you are using meta-xilinx-bsp rocko/master branch, it uses multilib builds the MB toolchain using newlib and libgloss to build pmufw http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/tree/meta-xilinx-bsp/ classes/zynqmp-pmu.bbclass http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-xilinx/tree/meta-xilinx-bsp/ recipes-core/newlib
I think I mentioned it before, but I am using the repo from github. That one does NOT build microblaze toolchain to compile pmufw.
I am really lost here, PMUFW needs a MB baremetal toolchain to build as far as I know.
There are only two possible ways to build it 1) Use XSCT with MB baremetal toolchain binaries (AKA meta-xilinx-tools layer) or 2) Use multilib, newlib/libgloss to build MB baremetal toolchain from source
I don’t see any other possibility of making it work
Thanks, Manju
participants (4)
-
Manjukumar Harthikote Matha -
Marek Vasut -
Michal Simek -
Rajan Vaja