On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:25 PM Peng Fan (OSS) <peng....@oss.nxp.com> wrote: > > > > On 2021/5/27 23:41, Tim Harvey wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > I support various iMX8M PCB's via board/gateworks/venice that are SOM > > based and we are starting to add SOM's that have different IMX8M variant > > SoC's on them which for various reasons are not binary compatible. I'm > > very interested in coming up with a way to make them binary compatible > > to reduce the number of disk images and boot firmware binaries our users > > work with (along with the confusion of which one they need to use). > > > > From what I see in working thus far with the IMX8M Mini, Nano, and Plus > > boot firmware differs in the following ways: > > - different primary image offsets > > - different dram config (phy training blob, phy cfg, cfg; which total > > about 3KiB for each config which varies based on dram type, soc variant, > > dram topology and bit-mapping) > > - different OCRAM sizes (compat binary would have to use the minimum > > size ie 256K) > > - different ATF binaries > > - different ATF load address > > - different pinmux/padconf/inputsel registers > > - different clk config > > > > The primary image offsets should be able to be dealt with by placing > > jumps at the various offsets and I believe the rest could be dealt with > > via runtime code if the SPL could load soc-specific blobs including dram > > config, ATF, binary firmware blobs from a nice indexed image such as FIT > > or binman. Currently imx8m SPL's use FIT images that are loaded entirely > > into OCRAM which becomes an issue when you have enough dram configs that > > they no longer fit in the OCRAM. > > > > Does anyone agree this is doable or is there something they see that > > would be a show-stopper? > > > > I'm not all that familiar with the merits of binman fs FIT images... I > > think they were developed for different things. I'm not sure if > > either/both are suited for what I'm talking about regarding having the > > SPL raw load binary blobs vs having them tacked onto a FIT image. > > > > I'm not sure if the imx8mq has enough in common to be able to do this > > with either, in fact I'm not even clear with SoC that is (is it what NXP > > calls i.MX 8M?) > > i.MX8MQ not have enough OCRAM for this case. SPL already use TCM here. >
Peng, Could you please explain what SoC you are referring to by 'i.MX8MQ'? I don't see that on https://www.nxp.com/products/processors-and-microcontrollers/arm-processors/i-mx-applications-processors/i-mx-8-processors:IMX8-SERIES Is this what NXP calls the 'i.MX 8M'? Best regards, Tim