Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Hi Mike, > -Original Message- > From: meta-xilinx-boun...@yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-xilinx- > boun...@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Mike Looijmans > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:36 PM > To: meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org > Subject: Re: [meta-xilinx] Why n

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

There are many reasons we moved away from the FSBL flow. The *main* reason is that we encountered various bugs (the FSBL worked okay on the evaluation board, but once we made our own module with different pinouts and support chips, the bugs started to appear). With the FSBL being non-free softw

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Manju, SDK is a freeware, but it is not free software. And even if the source is open it may still be not-free, like Xilinx unisims library for FPGA. Cost of the software for manufacturer is not a problem, but we provide our customers with the products they can modify as they want - all our cod

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Seems I started a major discussion, as a user engaged in delivering a MPSoC solution on a custom board which uses meta-xilinx to create Xen guests and PetaLinux to create Dom0 including FSBL I appreciate all efforts to make things easier. On 30 Nov 2017 22:11, "Manjukumar Harthikote Matha" < manju

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Hi Andrey, On 11/30/2017 11:56 AM, Andrey Filippov wrote: Manju, For 4 years we use Xilin Zynq with our hardware and never ever used FSBL or SDK. When we started in 2013 (https://blog.elphel.com/2013/10/fpga-is-for-freedom/) we quickly noticed that there is no way to distribute Zynq-based pr

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Manju, For 4 years we use Xilin Zynq with our hardware and never ever used FSBL or SDK. When we started in 2013 (https://blog.elphel.com/2013/10/fpga-is-for-freedom/) we quickly noticed that there is no way to distribute Zynq-based products and stay compliant with U-boot GPLv2 license - that w

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Hi Mike, On 11/28/2017 01:09 AM, Mike Looijmans wrote: The "open source" way is to avoid the FSBL (and in fact, all of meta-xilinx-tools) and use u-boot SPL instead. All functionality provided by the fsbl/bootgen flow is provided by u-boot SPL already. "All functionality" would be a blanket

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

no support for FSBL? The "open source" way is to avoid the FSBL (and in fact, all of meta-xilinx-tools) and use u-boot SPL instead. All functionality provided by the fsbl/bootgen flow is provided by u-boot SPL already. On 20-11-17 22:08, Peter Smith wrote: > Hi, I’m aware of th

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

The "open source" way is to avoid the FSBL (and in fact, all of meta-xilinx-tools) and use u-boot SPL instead. All functionality provided by the fsbl/bootgen flow is provided by u-boot SPL already. On 20-11-17 22:08, Peter Smith wrote: Hi, I’m aware of the meta-xilinx-tools layer, but this ne

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Hi, You can indeed build the FSBL + boot.bin using the meta-xilinx-tools layer: https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx-tools Giordon On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 3:03 PM Peter Smith wrote: > A question, I was wondering why there is no support for building FSBL in a > similar way to that provided by

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 12:16 AM To: Vidhumouli Hunsigida ; Nathan Rossi ; Peter Smith Cc: Prashant Malladi ; Joel A. Seely ; meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL? On 11/22/2017 07:01 AM, Vidhumouli Hunsigida wrote: > Nathan, > >

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

t; Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7:48 PM > To: Peter Smith > Cc: meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org > Subject: Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL? > > On 21 November 2017 at 07:08, Peter Smith wrote: >> Hi, I’m aware of the meta-xilinx-tools layer, but this needs you to

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Behalf Of Nathan Rossi Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7:48 PM To: Peter Smith Cc: meta-xilinx@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL? On 21 November 2017 at 07:08, Peter Smith wrote: > Hi, I’m aware of the meta-xilinx-tools layer, but this needs you to > ha

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Thanks for the very comprehensive answer. Best Regards Peter On 21 November 2017 at 14:18, Nathan Rossi wrote: > On 21 November 2017 at 07:08, Peter Smith wrote: > > Hi, I’m aware of the meta-xilinx-tools layer, but this needs you to have > the > > Xilinx SDK installed (unless I’m mistaken), I

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

On 21 November 2017 at 07:08, Peter Smith wrote: > Hi, I’m aware of the meta-xilinx-tools layer, but this needs you to have the > Xilinx SDK installed (unless I’m mistaken), I was wondering ion there were > any plans to create support in meta-xilinx for building the FSBL without the > need for the

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Hi, > FSBL without the need for the SDK dependency You could try this tool - ezynq . And the meta-ezynq . We have developed it a while ago for our custom zynq board - partly because of licensing issues and also to ma

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Hi, I’m aware of the meta-xilinx-tools layer, but this needs you to have the Xilinx SDK installed (unless I’m mistaken), I was wondering ion there were any plans to create support in meta-xilinx for building the FSBL without the need for the SDK dependency. Peter > On 20 Nov 2017, at 21:05, Gio

Re: [meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

Hi (resending from right address), You can indeed build the FSBL + boot.bin using the meta-xilinx-tools layer: https://github.com/Xilinx/meta-xilinx-tools Giordon On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 3:03 PM Peter Smith wrote: > A question, I was wondering why there is no support for building FSBL in a > s

[meta-xilinx] Why no support for FSBL?

A question, I was wondering why there is no support for building FSBL in a similar way to that provided by meta-xilinx for the PMU firmware, is there a technical reason or is it just one of those things that has not yet been got around to? Thanks in advance Peter. -- ___