[U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Pavel Machek]

Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.

Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
may be other uses in future.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 

diff --git a/board/altera/socfpga/socfpga_cyclone5.c 
b/board/altera/socfpga/socfpga_cyclone5.c
index 576066b..4540b1b 100644
--- a/board/altera/socfpga/socfpga_cyclone5.c
+++ b/board/altera/socfpga/socfpga_cyclone5.c
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ int print_cpuinfo(void)
  */
 int checkboard(void)
 {
-   puts("BOARD : Altera SOCFPGA Cyclone5 Board\n");
+   puts("BOARD : " ALTERA_BOARD_NAME "\n");
return 0;
 }
 
diff --git a/boards.cfg b/boards.cfg
index 375f2d4..20534c3 100644
--- a/boards.cfg
+++ b/boards.cfg
@@ -340,6 +340,7 @@ Active  arm armv7  rmobile kmc  
   kzm9g
 Active  arm armv7  s5pc1xx samsung goni
s5p_goni -  

   Minkyu Kang 
 Active  arm armv7  s5pc1xx samsung smdkc100
smdkc100 -  

   Minkyu Kang 
 Active  arm armv7  socfpga altera  socfpga 
socfpga_cyclone5 -  

   -
+Active  arm armv7  socfpga altera  socfpga 
socfpga_socrates -  

   -
 Active  arm armv7  u8500   st-ericsson snowball
snowball -  

   Mathieu Poirier 
 Active  arm armv7  u8500   st-ericsson u8500   
u8500_href   -  

   -
 Active  arm armv7  vf610   freescale   vf610twr
vf610twr 
vf610twr:IMX_CONFIG=board/freescale/vf610twr/imximage.cfg   
  Alison Wang 

diff --git a/include/configs/socfpga_common.h b/include/configs/socfpga_common.h
new file mode 100644
index 000..6d4dfcf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/configs/socfpga_common.h
@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+/*
+ *  Copyright (C) 2012 Altera Corporation 
+ *
+ * SPDX-License-Identifier:GPL-2.0+
+ */
+#ifndef __CONFIG_COMMON_H
+#define __CONFIG_COMMON_H
+
+#include 
+#include "../../board/altera/socfpga/pinmux_config.h"
+
+/*
+ * High level configuration
+ */
+/* Virtual target or real hardware */
+#define CONFIG_SOCFPGA_VIRTUAL_TARGET
+
+#define CONFIG_ARMV7
+#define CONFIG_L2_OFF
+#define CONFIG_SYS_DCACHE_OFF
+#undef CONFIG_USE_IRQ
+
+#define CONFIG_MISC_INIT_R
+#define CONFIG_SINGLE_BOOTLOADER
+#define CONFIG_SOCFPGA
+
+/* base address for .text section */
+#ifdef CONFIG_SOCFPGA_VIRTUAL_TARGET
+#define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE   0x0840
+#else
+#define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE   0x0140
+#endif
+#define CONFIG_SYS_LOAD_ADDR   0x7fc0
+
+/* Console I/O Buffer Size */
+#define CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE  256
+/* Monitor Command Prompt */
+#define CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT  "SOCFPGA_CYCLONE5 # "
+#define CONFIG_SYS_PBSIZE  (CONFIG_SYS_CBSIZE + \
+   sizeof(CONFIG_SYS_PROMPT) + 16)
+
+/*
+ * Display CPU and Board Info
+ */
+#define CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO
+#define CONFIG_DISPLAY_BOARDINFO
+
+/*
+ * Enable early stage initialization at C environment
+ */
+#define CONFIG_BOARD_EARLY_INIT_F
+
+/* flat device tree */
+#define CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT
+/* skip updating the FDT blob */
+#define CONFIG_FDT_BLOB_SKIP_UPDATE
+/* Initial Memory map size for Linux, minus 4k alignment for DFT blob */
+#define CONFIG_SYS_BOOTMAPSZ   ((256*1024*1024) - (4*1024))
+
+#define CONFIG_SPL_RAM_DEVICE
+#define CONFIG_SPL_STACK CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR
+#define CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_START ((unsigned long) (&__malloc_start))
+#define CONFIG_SYS_SPL_MALLOC_SIZE (&__malloc_end - &__malloc_start)
+
+/*
+ * Memory allocation (MALLOC)
+ */
+/* Room required on the stack for the environment data */
+#define CONFI

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Pavel,

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:26:02 +0100, Pavel Machek  wrote:

> 
> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
> 
> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
> may be other uses in future.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 

[weird: I don't see the commit separation line here ("---"). Not that it
matters much, just surprising.]

I assume the discussion on this patch is not actually related to the
change itself, which is thus OK.

However, it does not apply cleanly on current ARM tree.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Chin Liang See]

Hi Pavel,

On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 20:26 +0100, ZY - pavel wrote:
> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
> 
> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
> may be other uses in future.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
> 

Looks good to me. 
Reviewed-by: Chin Liang See 

In fact, we already make this change at our git at
http://rocketboards.org/gitweb/?p=u-boot-socfpga.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/socfpga_v2013.01.01.
 Hopefully I can continue to upstream few new patches in coming days. Thanks

Chin Liang



___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:

> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
> 
> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
> may be other uses in future.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 

Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?

-- 
Tom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Michal Simek]

On 11/11/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
>> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
>> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
>> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
>> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
>>
>> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
>> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
>> may be other uses in future.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
> 
> Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?

Why do you care about board name in general?
Just write that it is socfpga and that's it.

Thanks,
Michal

-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Detlev Zundel]

Hi Tom,

> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
>> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
>> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
>> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
>> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
>> 
>> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
>> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
>> may be other uses in future.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
>
> Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?

I'll try to find out, but currently I don't know of any way.

Best wishes
  Detlev

-- 
Man gelangt nicht dazu, gluecklich zu sein, aber man macht Feststellungen
ueber die Gruende, die uns daran hindern es zu sein.
-- Marcel Proust
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,  MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich,  Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: d...@denx.de
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Detlev Zundel]

Hi Michal,

> On 11/11/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> 
>>> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
>>> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
>>> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
>>> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
>>>
>>> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
>>> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
>>> may be other uses in future.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
>> 
>> Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?
>
> Why do you care about board name in general?

We care for board names for a very long time in U-Boot and I'd like to
keep this.  I actually expect a sensible board name on any platform that
I touch.  The board name is an important extra information additional to
the SoC name.  So the question is the other way round - since when do we
_not_ care about board names?

Cheers
  Detlev

-- 
A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is
not worth knowing. -- Alan Perlis, Epigrams on Programming
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,  MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich,  Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: d...@denx.de
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Michal Simek]

On 11/12/2013 10:56 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
>> On 11/11/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>
 Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
 expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
 parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
 both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.

 Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
 different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
 may be other uses in future.

 Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
>>>
>>> Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?
>>
>> Why do you care about board name in general?
> 
> We care for board names for a very long time in U-Boot and I'd like to
> keep this.  I actually expect a sensible board name on any platform that
> I touch.  The board name is an important extra information additional to
> the SoC name.  So the question is the other way round - since when do we
> _not_ care about board names?

There could be i2c memory on board where you can find out this information but 
that's
problematic if it is empty or you want to use this i2c for something else.
For all microblaze boards I use XILINX_BOARD_NAME which reflects hw design
(if user is smart enough board name is the part of hw design name).
For zynq/socfpga sensible solution is probably to load this name for DTS.

Thanks,
Michal

-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Chin Liang See]

Hi all,

On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:17 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 10:56 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> > Hi Michal,
> > 
> >> On 11/11/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>>
>  Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
>  expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
>  parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
>  both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
> 
>  Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
>  different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
>  may be other uses in future.
> 
>  Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
> >>>
> >>> Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?
> >>
> >> Why do you care about board name in general?
> > 
> > We care for board names for a very long time in U-Boot and I'd like to
> > keep this.  I actually expect a sensible board name on any platform that
> > I touch.  The board name is an important extra information additional to
> > the SoC name.  So the question is the other way round - since when do we
> > _not_ care about board names?
> 
> There could be i2c memory on board where you can find out this information 
> but that's
> problematic if it is empty or you want to use this i2c for something else.
> For all microblaze boards I use XILINX_BOARD_NAME which reflects hw design
> (if user is smart enough board name is the part of hw design name).
> For zynq/socfpga sensible solution is probably to load this name for DTS.
> 

Currently, the SOCFPGA SPL is customized through a set of handoff files
which located at board folders. These handoff files are generated by
tools based on board and user design in FPGA. With that, not much
decision being made during run time based on the board. With this
handoff and tools approach, it will shield off the complexity of
hardware configuration and errors (if user change it manually without
tools help). Thanks

Chin Liang



> Thanks,
> Michal
> 



___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Michal Simek]

On 11/12/2013 03:46 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:17 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 11/12/2013 10:56 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
>>> Hi Michal,
>>>
 On 11/11/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
>> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
>> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
>> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
>> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
>>
>> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
>> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
>> may be other uses in future.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
>
> Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?

 Why do you care about board name in general?
>>>
>>> We care for board names for a very long time in U-Boot and I'd like to
>>> keep this.  I actually expect a sensible board name on any platform that
>>> I touch.  The board name is an important extra information additional to
>>> the SoC name.  So the question is the other way round - since when do we
>>> _not_ care about board names?
>>
>> There could be i2c memory on board where you can find out this information 
>> but that's
>> problematic if it is empty or you want to use this i2c for something else.
>> For all microblaze boards I use XILINX_BOARD_NAME which reflects hw design
>> (if user is smart enough board name is the part of hw design name).
>> For zynq/socfpga sensible solution is probably to load this name for DTS.
>>
> 
> Currently, the SOCFPGA SPL is customized through a set of handoff files
> which located at board folders. These handoff files are generated by
> tools based on board and user design in FPGA. With that, not much
> decision being made during run time based on the board. With this
> handoff and tools approach, it will shield off the complexity of
> hardware configuration and errors (if user change it manually without
> tools help). Thanks

Which nice copy of our approach. :-)
But anyway I believe that you are also generating one macro which define
name of this configuration based on hw design/board you are using.
And then you can use this macro for showing board/design name in u-boot.

Thanks,
Michal

-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:56:29AM +0100, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
> > On 11/11/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
> >>> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
> >>> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
> >>> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
> >>> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
> >>> may be other uses in future.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
> >> 
> >> Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?
> >
> > Why do you care about board name in general?
> 
> We care for board names for a very long time in U-Boot and I'd like to
> keep this.  I actually expect a sensible board name on any platform that
> I touch.  The board name is an important extra information additional to
> the SoC name.  So the question is the other way round - since when do we
> _not_ care about board names?

We have a few different and somewhat conflicting concerns right now, and
this particular platform is an example of a few of them:
1) It's not only possible, but desirable (seemingly, in this case) to
support N boards with a single binary.  The space-cost is outweighed by
the usability-gain.  We're seeing this in Freescale and TI parts, and I
bet if I looked a tiny bit harder, other vendors too.
2) We want to know what particular board we're on, and perhaps even as
part of deployment build something more trimmed down to just what we're
running on.

-- 
Tom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Dinh Nguyen]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Michal Simek  wrote:

> On 11/12/2013 03:46 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:17 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> On 11/12/2013 10:56 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> >>> Hi Michal,
> >>>
>  On 11/11/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> >> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
> >> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board.
> Different
> >> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
> >> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
> >>
> >> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they
> are
> >> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
> >> may be other uses in future.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
> >
> > Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?
> 
>  Why do you care about board name in general?
> >>>
> >>> We care for board names for a very long time in U-Boot and I'd like to
> >>> keep this.  I actually expect a sensible board name on any platform
> that
> >>> I touch.  The board name is an important extra information additional
> to
> >>> the SoC name.  So the question is the other way round - since when do
> we
> >>> _not_ care about board names?
> >>
> >> There could be i2c memory on board where you can find out this
> information but that's
> >> problematic if it is empty or you want to use this i2c for something
> else.
> >> For all microblaze boards I use XILINX_BOARD_NAME which reflects hw
> design
> >> (if user is smart enough board name is the part of hw design name).
> >> For zynq/socfpga sensible solution is probably to load this name for
> DTS.
> >>
> >
> > Currently, the SOCFPGA SPL is customized through a set of handoff files
> > which located at board folders. These handoff files are generated by
> > tools based on board and user design in FPGA. With that, not much
> > decision being made during run time based on the board. With this
> > handoff and tools approach, it will shield off the complexity of
> > hardware configuration and errors (if user change it manually without
> > tools help). Thanks
>
> Which nice copy of our approach. :-)
>

Ugh...that came from you guys? I can't  stand that approach. Coming from
the i.MX world, this
makes the end user so reliant on proprietary tools.

Dinh


> But anyway I believe that you are also generating one macro which define
> name of this configuration based on hw design/board you are using.
> And then you can use this macro for showing board/design name in u-boot.
>
> Thanks,
> Michal
>
> --
> Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
> w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
> Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
> Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture
> Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform
>
>
>
> ___
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot@lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>
>
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Chin Liang See]

On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:17 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 03:46 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:17 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> On 11/12/2013 10:56 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> >>> Hi Michal,
> >>>
>  On 11/11/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> >> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
> >> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
> >> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
> >> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.
> >>
> >> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
> >> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
> >> may be other uses in future.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
> >
> > Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?
> 
>  Why do you care about board name in general?
> >>>
> >>> We care for board names for a very long time in U-Boot and I'd like to
> >>> keep this.  I actually expect a sensible board name on any platform that
> >>> I touch.  The board name is an important extra information additional to
> >>> the SoC name.  So the question is the other way round - since when do we
> >>> _not_ care about board names?
> >>
> >> There could be i2c memory on board where you can find out this information 
> >> but that's
> >> problematic if it is empty or you want to use this i2c for something else.
> >> For all microblaze boards I use XILINX_BOARD_NAME which reflects hw design
> >> (if user is smart enough board name is the part of hw design name).
> >> For zynq/socfpga sensible solution is probably to load this name for DTS.
> >>
> > 
> > Currently, the SOCFPGA SPL is customized through a set of handoff files
> > which located at board folders. These handoff files are generated by
> > tools based on board and user design in FPGA. With that, not much
> > decision being made during run time based on the board. With this
> > handoff and tools approach, it will shield off the complexity of
> > hardware configuration and errors (if user change it manually without
> > tools help). Thanks
> 
> Which nice copy of our approach. :-)

Hmmm... is it true? This approach being used since few years back at
NIOS soft processor. Besides that, we are utilizing the SPL framework
for our second stage boot loader. I believe you guys are not using SPL
right? It seems you guys would need tools to generate and even build you
guys own version of boot loader. It creates high dependency for user to
your tools. 

For our solution, customer can just grab the code from git and build it
using the normal U-Boot way (if they don't want to use the tools). With
the SPL also, we are taking advantage of open source community power to
make our second stage boot loader more powerful and user friendly to
user. Our user can grab any drivers or leverage the supports from the
open community too. I believe that is the power of open source :) 

Chin Liang


> But anyway I believe that you are also generating one macro which define
> name of this configuration based on hw design/board you are using.
> And then you can use this macro for showing board/design name in u-boot.
> 
> Thanks,
> Michal
> 



___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Michal Simek]

On 11/13/2013 03:39 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 16:17 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 11/12/2013 03:46 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:17 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
 On 11/12/2013 10:56 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
>> On 11/11/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>
 Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular,
 expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. Different
 parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on
 both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users.

 Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they are
 different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there
 may be other uses in future.

 Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek 
>>>
>>> Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on?
>>
>> Why do you care about board name in general?
>
> We care for board names for a very long time in U-Boot and I'd like to
> keep this.  I actually expect a sensible board name on any platform that
> I touch.  The board name is an important extra information additional to
> the SoC name.  So the question is the other way round - since when do we
> _not_ care about board names?

 There could be i2c memory on board where you can find out this information 
 but that's
 problematic if it is empty or you want to use this i2c for something else.
 For all microblaze boards I use XILINX_BOARD_NAME which reflects hw design
 (if user is smart enough board name is the part of hw design name).
 For zynq/socfpga sensible solution is probably to load this name for DTS.

>>>
>>> Currently, the SOCFPGA SPL is customized through a set of handoff files
>>> which located at board folders. These handoff files are generated by
>>> tools based on board and user design in FPGA. With that, not much
>>> decision being made during run time based on the board. With this
>>> handoff and tools approach, it will shield off the complexity of
>>> hardware configuration and errors (if user change it manually without
>>> tools help). Thanks
>>
>> Which nice copy of our approach. :-)
> 
> Hmmm... is it true? This approach being used since few years back at
> NIOS soft processor. Besides that, we are utilizing the SPL framework
> for our second stage boot loader. I believe you guys are not using SPL
> right? It seems you guys would need tools to generate and even build you
> guys own version of boot loader. It creates high dependency for user to
> your tools. 

Interesting discussion. :-)
I believe we will use SPL at some point in future for Microblaze
just because of easier maintenance . But will see.

I don't understand your point regarding to tool dependency. For DTSes
I believe you are also generating this structure from design tools
or you can write it by hand.
We are also generating U-boot configuration but if someone wants to write
it by hand they can.

> For our solution, customer can just grab the code from git and build it
> using the normal U-Boot way (if they don't want to use the tools). With
> the SPL also, we are taking advantage of open source community power to
> make our second stage boot loader more powerful and user friendly to
> user. Our user can grab any drivers or leverage the supports from the
> open community too. I believe that is the power of open source :) 

We have the same for Microblaze and Zynq.

Cheers,
Michal

-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Chin Liang See]

Hi,

> 
> >>>
> >>> Currently, the SOCFPGA SPL is customized through a set of handoff files
> >>> which located at board folders. These handoff files are generated by
> >>> tools based on board and user design in FPGA. With that, not much
> >>> decision being made during run time based on the board. With this
> >>> handoff and tools approach, it will shield off the complexity of
> >>> hardware configuration and errors (if user change it manually without
> >>> tools help). Thanks
> >>
> >> Which nice copy of our approach. :-)
> > 
> > Hmmm... is it true? This approach being used since few years back at
> > NIOS soft processor. Besides that, we are utilizing the SPL framework
> > for our second stage boot loader. I believe you guys are not using SPL
> > right? It seems you guys would need tools to generate and even build you
> > guys own version of boot loader. It creates high dependency for user to
> > your tools. 
> 
> Interesting discussion. :-)
> I believe we will use SPL at some point in future for Microblaze
> just because of easier maintenance . But will see.

Yup, utilizing SPL will gain you the power of open source :)

> 
> I don't understand your point regarding to tool dependency. For DTSes
> I believe you are also generating this structure from design tools
> or you can write it by hand.
> We are also generating U-boot configuration but if someone wants to write
> it by hand they can.

I believe we have misalignment on the term used. For us, second stage
bootloader is referring to the bootloader loaded by BootROM. I believe
you guys are referring that as FSBL. 

> > For our solution, customer can just grab the code from git and build it
> > using the normal U-Boot way (if they don't want to use the tools). With
> > the SPL also, we are taking advantage of open source community power to
> > make our second stage boot loader more powerful and user friendly to
> > user. Our user can grab any drivers or leverage the supports from the
> > open community too. I believe that is the power of open source :) 
> 
> We have the same for Microblaze and Zynq.

Same as above, I believe both of us are using U-Boot. But for bootloader
before U-Boot, we are using SPL while you guys using FSBL which is not
SPL framework, right? With that, I believe you guys would need a
proprietary tools to compile and build the FSBL. We would not have this
dependency when building the SPL code.

Thanks
Chin Liang

> 
> Cheers,
> Michal
> 



___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Separate EBV Socrates board from Altera Cyclone 5 board

[Michal Simek]

On 11/13/2013 06:57 PM, Chin Liang See wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>
>
> Currently, the SOCFPGA SPL is customized through a set of handoff files
> which located at board folders. These handoff files are generated by
> tools based on board and user design in FPGA. With that, not much
> decision being made during run time based on the board. With this
> handoff and tools approach, it will shield off the complexity of
> hardware configuration and errors (if user change it manually without
> tools help). Thanks

 Which nice copy of our approach. :-)
>>>
>>> Hmmm... is it true? This approach being used since few years back at
>>> NIOS soft processor. Besides that, we are utilizing the SPL framework
>>> for our second stage boot loader. I believe you guys are not using SPL
>>> right? It seems you guys would need tools to generate and even build you
>>> guys own version of boot loader. It creates high dependency for user to
>>> your tools. 
>>
>> Interesting discussion. :-)
>> I believe we will use SPL at some point in future for Microblaze
>> just because of easier maintenance . But will see.
> 
> Yup, utilizing SPL will gain you the power of open source :)

I agree with you but still we both have strong dependency on tools
regarding to configuration that's why you can do it without tools
but still you have to go through tools to get at least bitstream
for PL.

>>
>> I don't understand your point regarding to tool dependency. For DTSes
>> I believe you are also generating this structure from design tools
>> or you can write it by hand.
>> We are also generating U-boot configuration but if someone wants to write
>> it by hand they can.
> 
> I believe we have misalignment on the term used. For us, second stage
> bootloader is referring to the bootloader loaded by BootROM. I believe
> you guys are referring that as FSBL. 

zynq:
bootrom->fsbl->u-boot-> whatever
or
bootrom->fsbl-> whatever

microblaze:
fsboot->u-boot->whatever.

For you I believe it is for socfpga
bootrom->SPL->u-boot-> whatever or
bootrom->SPL->whatever

I am not quite sure what you are using for NIOS.



>>> For our solution, customer can just grab the code from git and build it
>>> using the normal U-Boot way (if they don't want to use the tools). With
>>> the SPL also, we are taking advantage of open source community power to
>>> make our second stage boot loader more powerful and user friendly to
>>> user. Our user can grab any drivers or leverage the supports from the
>>> open community too. I believe that is the power of open source :) 
>>
>> We have the same for Microblaze and Zynq.
> 
> Same as above, I believe both of us are using U-Boot. But for bootloader
> before U-Boot, we are using SPL while you guys using FSBL which is not
> SPL framework, right? With that, I believe you guys would need a
> proprietary tools to compile and build the FSBL. We would not have this
> dependency when building the SPL code.

Yes that's correct.

Thanks,
Michal

-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot