On 18 March 2017 at 02:45, Jean-Francois Dagenais <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mar 17, 2017, at 03:16, Nathan Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 17 March 2017 at 05:27, Jean-Francois Dagenais >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Is it ok for me not to care about the PMU FW or ATF at this point of our >>> development? >> >> For PMU Firmware, sure you can probably ignore it and use the >> xilinx-v2016.4 kernel and u-boot. ATF is needed though since a psci >> implementation is needed that can handle cpu bringup. > > Ok, help me make sure I understand from having read your whole answer. I only > need to provide an alternate (TBD) PMU FW because I am using > u-boot-xlnx/master > and something was added since u-boot xilinx-v2016.4 that requires it?
Not alternate, since given the error you have not loaded any pmu firmware. But yes, this is only relevant because you are using u-boot-xlnx master. The commit that introduced the requirement is https://github.com/Xilinx/u-boot-xlnx/commit/e047c5ad3db3cc2fa8c53a4a663ac8a256159b0e > > And did you just misprint "xilinx-v2016.4 kernel" instead of "u-boot"? Well I was not sure if you were also using the master branch of linux-xlnx or not, but linux-xlnx master has the same requirements for PMUFW. > > Did you mean I should use u-boot (upstream) instead of u-boot-xlnx? No you will want to use u-boot-xlnx at the moment. But Michal might be able to give you a better status on using zcu102 with upstream u-boot. > > You can tell I am confused! It'll get better within a few weeks! ;) Until > then, please put more info that's not too much trouble. :) > >> It is ok for the U-Boot build to succeed without a psu_init_gpl, since >> it is common to use FSBL as a loader. Which is normally just loading >> the full U-Boot so SPL is not needed in that case. But the meta-xilinx >> layer does have a hard fail (for zynq at least, but will be for zynqmp >> too) if you try to build/deploy SPL (SPL_BINARY = "spl/boot.bin" is >> set) and nothing is providing the ps*_init_gpl files. > > I'm no expert on u-boot (yet ;) but I think this smells trouble. Maybe not for > meta-xilinx supported builds, but for integrators such as myself and all the > other OEMs which will use meta-xilinx as a base. > > I understand about an SPL-less build. Perhaps the Makefile could inspect > CONFIG_SPL_BUILD and fail if the psu_init_gpl files aren't found. You don't > get > very far with a "psu_init"-less SPL, but much better if failure occurs at > build > time. I can can attempt a patch in board/xilinx/zynqmp/Makefile unless you > think > its a bad idea. I think its probably a good idea to have it fail if the ps*_init files are missing, this probably would apply to zynq as well. But this is something that would best be discussed on the u-boot list? or maybe Michal can chime in here too? > >> >> On a side note, you should be able to just copy the psu_init_gpl files >> from master u-boot-xlnx and use them in the xilinx-v2016.4 version >> (which doesn't have the pmufw requirements). > > My first tries were with u-boot-xlnx (v2016.4) and the SPL almost didn't start > at all. It may be related to 7d355473f34a (mmc: sdhci: zynqmp: Add support of > SD3.0) not being there yet. I did not try exactly your idea though. I will get > to it soon if nothing else works. > > Can I not change something in the defconfig to remove the extra PMUFW > dependency? You might be able to hack around it, but I wouldn't recommend going down that path. Regards, Nathan -- _______________________________________________ meta-xilinx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-xilinx
