Hello Simon, Lukasz, On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@majess.pl> wrote: > Hi Simon, > >> Hi, >> >> On 28 November 2014 at 06:46, Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@majess.pl> >> wrote: >> > Hello Javier, >> > >> >> Hello Lukasz, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Lukasz Majewski >> >> <l.majew...@majess.pl> wrote: >> >> >> I have yet to take him up on that offer though, but it sounds >> >> >> like a good way forward. The current layout really isn't >> >> >> practical. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > It indeed isn't very practical, but this is what you received >> >> > from HardKernel when you buy XU3 board. >> >> > >> >> > Of course you can grab their sources, modify the layout, prepare >> >> > u-boot's SPL and send it to them to be signed. >> >> > However, it is not the way the "normal" user do things. >> >> > >> >> > He or she would like to replace standard (and outdated) >> >> > HardKernel u-boot on their SD card and go forward with booting >> >> > kernel. >> >> > >> >> >> >> I agree with Sjoed that normal users don't replace the low-level >> >> components that are provided by the board vendor. >> >> >> >> After all you can boot a mainline kernel using the vendor u-boot, >> >> just append the DTB and create a uImage. The practical reason why >> >> someone would want to replace the vendor u-boot is to have more >> >> features but is very hard to do if there is a constraint in the >> >> maximum u-boot image size (even harder if the maximum is such >> >> small like in the XU3). >> > >> > I agree that 328 KiB size for u-boot is a constraint. I don't know >> > HardKernel's justification for this. >> > >> >> >> >> > For now we _must_ focus on supporting XU3 with default BL1/BL2 >> >> > and hence we are obliged to have u-boot size smaller than 328 >> >> > KiB. >> >> > >> >> > It is challenging but for sure doable. >> >> > >> >> >> >> It is doable but I don't see why the default BL2 _must_ be used. >> > >> > For practical/pragmatic reasons: >> > >> > 1. It is difficult to have signed BL2 - each time we need to ask >> > HardKernel for signing it. It is impractical and hampers usage of >> > mainline SPL (BL2) with XU3. >> > >> > 2. All the documentation on the HardKernel wiki site refers to the >> > default BL2. >> > >> > 3. We will have "new" BL2, which source code is based on 2012.07 >> > mainline u-boot. >> > >> > 4. Two BL2 binaries - IMHO will hurt (i.e. brick) some device sooner >> > or latter. >> > >> >> >> >> A user that wants to replace the kernel or u-boot is already >> >> tech-savy and can for sure replace the BL2 as well if it's >> >> publicly available. >> > >> > Sorry, but I'm a bit sceptical about updating such low level code. >> > Bad things do happen. >> > >> >> Maybe hardkernel folks can even make the modified BL2 available on >> >> their website and the link added in the comment explaining the >> >> layout? >> > >> > We would then require HardKernel to: >> > >> > 1. Provide updated BL2.img >> > 2. Update their wiki to reflect the new BL2. >> > >> >> >> >> Also, it is an artificial constraint after all and can be easily >> >> modified. In fact I think we should push hardkernel to change that >> >> layout by default and use a BL2/SPL that has more sensible size for >> >> the u-boot binary even if they don't need it for their vendor >> >> u-boot which seems to be quite small. >> > >> > I totally agree. >> > >> > I'd like to propose a following plan: >> > >> > 1. Accept Hyungwon's patches to have XU3 u-boot < 328 KiB (with >> > link to default BL2) to have XU3 support in place (and treat it as >> > a starting point) >> > >> > 2. If u-boot's size less than 328 KiB is _really_ a problem to >> > somebody then ask hardkernel to change BL2 or: >> > - modify their sources to change the layout (I regard this >> > as a "quick hack" solution) >> > - with a lot of pain develop BL2/SPL (by whom?) which base >> > on newest mainline (then for each test hardkernel must sign the >> > binary). >> >> My 2p worth... >> >> The current Hardkernel BL1 looks broken to me - it is just too old. > > +1 > >> While it is shipped with the board if you get an eMMC, the main way >> people will get this is by downloading it from their site. So why not >> download something different? > > As far as I remember U3 and probably XU3 in their README only points > for HardKernel's site to grab BL1 and BL2. We don't plan to include > their binaries to u-boot repository. > >> >> Re the plan, I think 1 is fine so long as it is protected by a big >> ugly hack CONFIG and we can turn it off soon and revert the code. > > Hyungwon's patches only touch u-boot and rely (temporary I hope) on BL1 > and BL2/SPL from Hardkernel. > >> >> For 2, the size issue is one problem, but the clock code in U-Boot is >> another IMO. We should try to get both resolved. Maybe it is possible >> to use the peach-pit BL2 and get hardkernel to test it and sign it? > > I guess that SPL from peach-pit should be tunable to work with XU3 (in > a finite number of iterations including signing from HardKernel). > > As it is based on recent u-boot it should be easy to produce BL2/SPL > only for XU3 (if needed). > >> Then people will download that one instead. >> >> is there a contact at hardkernel on the mailing list? > > As fair as I know no. > > I was posting questions on their forum. Maybe it is a right place to > ask for contact point? > As fair as I remember they were willing to sign SPL/BL2 when sent to > them. >
I have gotten a BL2 signed (based of their repository) which allows a bigger U-Boot for testing, and it works. I have currently requested another signed BL2 which lets one use a 1MB U-Boot image which should be adequate. This is in the works. I do not work for hardkernel but I do have a working relationship with them. From the looks of it they are more than willing to accomodate this BL2 change. I can take this action point of getting this BL2 and its related paraphernalia hosted on their website once they are OK with its testing. Regards - Suriyan >> >> Regards, >> Simon > > Best regards, > Lukasz Majewski > > _______________________________________________ > 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