Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi Tiger, On 12 February 2014 07:38, tiger...@viatech.com.cn wrote: Hi, Bhupesh: I described my steps: 1. Compiled ATF Export CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/ gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- make DEBUG=1 V=1 make DEBUG=1 PLAT=fvp all dump Note: I used linaro released aarch64 compiler, not official gcc 4.7 2. Compiled Uboot (1) revised CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE in vexpress_aemv8a.h CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE = 0x0800 (2) compiled Uboot export ARCH=aarch64 export CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- make vexpress_aemv8a I tried the above steps to compile vexpress_aemv8a, but i get the following errors. Any idea? aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-marm' aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mno-thumb-interwork' aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mabi=aapcs-linux' aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mword-relocations' my u-boot points to 22a240c serial/serial_arc - add driver for ARC UART. Thanks, Inder Note: Please use u-boot.bin(about 207 KB) in below step 3. 3. Run ATF with FVP base model ./Foundation_v8 --cores=2 --no-gicv3 --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --data=./u-boot.bin@0x0800 Note: I use Foundation_v8, a free armv8 foundation model, not a commercial licensed model. Best wishes, ___ 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] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, Inder: aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-marm' aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mno-thumb-interwork' aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mabi=aapcs-linux' aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mword-relocations' I didn't run into this issue. From Google's answer: Maybe you lost a step in the command line : export ARCH=aarch64 I usually put it in batch file: export ARCH=aarch64 export CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- make vexpress_aemv8a Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
On 12 February 2014 13:32, tiger...@viatech.com.cn wrote: Hi, Inder: aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-marm' aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mno-thumb-interwork' aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mabi=aapcs-linux' aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mword-relocations' I didn't run into this issue. From Google's answer: Maybe you lost a step in the command line : export ARCH=aarch64 No, I did not miss this step. I also have put this in batch file :-) Could it be a toolchain issue? I used the linaro toochain gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2014.01_linux.tar.xzhttp://releases.linaro.org/latest/components/toolchain/binaries/gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2014.01_linux.tar.xzat [1]. [1] http://releases.linaro.org/latest/components/toolchain/binaries/ Thanks, Inder I usually put it in batch file: export ARCH=aarch64 export CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- make vexpress_aemv8a Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, Inder: Could it be a toolchain issue? I used the linaro toochain gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2014.01_linux.tar.xz http://releases.linaro.org/latest/components/toolchain/binaries/gcc-lin aro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2014.01_linux.tar.xz at [1]. Maybe I use gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2013.07-1_linux.tar Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi Inder, Could you please check the output of: $ echo $ARCH if it set to some values, unset it using: $ unset ARCH Regards, Bhupesh From: tiger...@viatech.com.cn [mailto:tiger...@viatech.com.cn] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:44 PM To: inderpal.si...@linaro.org Cc: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; dra...@broadcom.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de; tr...@ti.com Subject: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi, Inder: Could it be a toolchain issue? I used the linaro toochain gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2014.01_linux.tar.xzhttp://releases.linaro.org/latest/components/toolchain/binaries/gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2014.01_linux.tar.xz at [1]. Maybe I use gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2013.07-1_linux.tar Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi Bhupesh, On 12 February 2014 13:55, bhupesh.sha...@freescale.com bhupesh.sha...@freescale.com wrote: Hi Inder, Could you please check the output of: $ echo $ARCH I checked, it gives aarch64. Anyway if I don't set ARCH properly, the make command fails saying Failed: $ARCH=arm, should be 'aarch64' for vexpress_aemv8a. There seems to be some other problem. I tried with Tiger's toolchain version as well but I get same issue. Thanks, Inder if it set to some values, unset it using: $ unset ARCH Regards, Bhupesh *From:* tiger...@viatech.com.cn [mailto:tiger...@viatech.com.cn] *Sent:* Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:44 PM *To:* inderpal.si...@linaro.org *Cc:* Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; dra...@broadcom.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de; tr...@ti.com *Subject:* Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi, Inder: Could it be a toolchain issue? I used the linaro toochain gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2014.01_linux.tar.xzhttp://releases.linaro.org/latest/components/toolchain/binaries/gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2014.01_linux.tar.xzat [1]. Maybe I use gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2013.07-1_linux.tar Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi Tiger, -Original Message- From: tiger...@viatech.com.cn [mailto:tiger...@viatech.com.cn] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 1:25 PM To: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; dra...@broadcom.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: tr...@ti.com Subject: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi, bhupesh and drambo: I think current uboot ARMv8's start.S could handle EL2/EL1 case. I have tested it on FVP model, let arm trusted firmware boot u- boot.bin. It seemed ok. The command I used is: ./Foundation_v8 --cores=4 --no-secure-memory --no-gicv3 --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --nsdata=./u-boot.bin@0x0800 I changed CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE = 0x0800 (because ARM trusted firmware will search non-secure firmware entry point at this addr). I tried the ATF method you mentioned above which the u-boot compiled for ARMv8 foundation model, but, I ran into some issues. Can you please elaborate the steps you use to compile the ATF for ARMv8 foundation model and the command line you use to launch the ATF BL1 and u-boot on the model. Regards, Bhupesh ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, Bhupesh: I described my steps: 1. Compiled ATF Export CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/ gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- make DEBUG=1 V=1 make DEBUG=1 PLAT=fvp all dump Note: I used linaro released aarch64 compiler, not official gcc 4.7 2. Compiled Uboot (1) revised CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE in vexpress_aemv8a.h CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE = 0x0800 (2) compiled Uboot export ARCH=aarch64 export CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- make vexpress_aemv8a Note: Please use u-boot.bin(about 207 KB) in below step 3. 3. Run ATF with FVP base model ./Foundation_v8 --cores=2 --no-gicv3 --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --data=./u-boot.bin@0x0800 Note: I use Foundation_v8, a free armv8 foundation model, not a commercial licensed model. Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi Tiger, -Original Message- From: tiger...@viatech.com.cn [mailto:tiger...@viatech.com.cn] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:38 AM To: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; dra...@broadcom.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: tr...@ti.com Subject: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi, Bhupesh: I described my steps: 1. Compiled ATF Export CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/ gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- make DEBUG=1 V=1 make DEBUG=1 PLAT=fvp all dump Note: I used linaro released aarch64 compiler, not official gcc 4.7 2. Compiled Uboot (1) revised CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE in vexpress_aemv8a.h CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE = 0x0800 (2) compiled Uboot export ARCH=aarch64 export CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- make vexpress_aemv8a Note: Please use u-boot.bin(about 207 KB) in below step 3. 3. Run ATF with FVP base model ./Foundation_v8 --cores=2 --no-gicv3 --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --data=./u-boot.bin@0x0800 Note: I use Foundation_v8, a free armv8 foundation model, not a commercial licensed model. Thanks for the steps. Actually I was following the same but I get an error Failed to load boot loader stage 2 (BL2) firmware, although I have placed the 'bl2.bin' at the same directory level as the ARMv8 foundation model (v2 - Release 52rel06). The complete boot log is: Escape character is '^]'. Booting trusted firmware boot loader stage 1 Built : 16:09:23, Feb 11 2014 ERROR: Cannot access 'bl2.bin' file (-1). Failed to load boot loader stage 2 (BL2) firmware. Did you see some similar issues at your end? Regards, Bhupesh ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, Bhupesh: Booting trusted firmware boot loader stage 1 Built : 16:09:23, Feb 11 2014 ERROR: Cannot access 'bl2.bin' file (-1). Failed to load boot loader stage 2 (BL2) firmware. I did not run into this issue. It seems semihosting broken! Maybe this website is useful: https://github.com/ARM-software/tf-issues/issues/10 Additional info about my running platform: 1. Ubuntu 11.10 x64 version 2. FVP model : downloaded from ARM Ltd website two weeks ago. Maybe your FVP model is older than mine?! Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
-Original Message- From: Darwin Rambo [mailto:dra...@broadcom.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:35 PM To: Detlev Zundel; Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 Cc: 'u-boot@lists.denx.de'; 'Tom Rini' Subject: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support On 14-01-23 07:58 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote: Hi Bhupesh, -Original Message- From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of drambo Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:32 AM To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi Bhupesh, U-boot doesn't have ARM trusted firmware support as of now. U-boot for ARMv8 starts in EL3, whereas UEFI starts in EL2 as trusted firmware itself is working in EL3. Since the ATF software doesn't really care whether it is loading uefi or u-boot and since it wants to load non-secure images as EL2 or EL1 (https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted- firmware/blob/master/docs/user-guide.md See section Normal World Software Execution), why would we want to assume u-boot starts in EL3 mode by default? If we want to support EL3 execution for convenience to those that don't have ATF setup, that might make sense, but then shouldn't initial EL3 execution and subsequent switching levels be debug CONFIG options? Thanks. In the past I remember using u-boot as the bare-metal s/w to debug a Silicon without any BootROM/firmware code running before the same on ARM 32-bit architectures. Many of our customers (in the embedded market) use U-Boot in such a way very successfully. armv8 and ATF bring in a new security model and with that, secure monitor/dispatch, secure OS support and secure power control. It may not be good to assume that we can work in a historical way here. I am not against ATF :) . Like I mentioned below, I personally favor using ATF to boot both u-boot and UEFI, but I have some reservations on the same. More on that below . The ATF is presently tested only for UEFI and UEFI comes up in EL2 while the ATF itself is running in EL3. I don't know what would be the popular vote on this, but personally I feel that the u-boot for ARMv8 should also be launched by the ATF (similar to UEFI) and should start execution in EL2 so that it can launch a hypervisor (running in EL2) or Linux (running in EL1). But this might hurt the popular premise that u-boot can be used as a bare-metal s/w to debug a silicon without additional firmware components. Perhaps u-boot experts can guide us on this ! I have to admit that I'm only reading up on the complexities of the security model of aarch64, but my gut response (cf. [1] is that real security stems from few code rather than adding layer over layer. With this in mind, I'd really like to see that U-Boot with its well known and tested code base can still be the root of trust in an embedded product (i.e. EL3 as far as I understand). EL3 is the highest level of trust, and the new armv8 security model treats uefi/u-boot as non-secure firmware. The ATF trusted firmware needs to run, initialize secure hardware, load trusted images, and ultimately launch the non-secure OS loader (uefi or u-boot). As such, I think that running uefi or u-boot at EL3 violates the current arm security model i.e. u-boot cannot be the root of trust in this architecture since it is non-secure. Having non-secure firmware run at the same level as the secure dispatcher and secure monitor will fail any secure audit in my opinion. However, if we set up u-boot so that it can wake up at any security level and migrate to non-secure EL1, that might be a nice compromise. But having specific EL3 startup assumptions and code that is always present in u-boot seems like the wrong approach to me. At the very least, we should wrap the EL3 code in a CONFIG option since this is not the planned entry state for final deployment. ... You seem to miss a critical detail here, security extensions were also part of the ARMv7 architecture (although optional) and were controlled by the ID_PFR1, Processor Feature Register 1, Security Extensions, bits[7:4]: Permitted values are: 0b Not implemented. 0b0001 Security Extensions implemented. So, there was a likelihood that some ARMv7 SoCs still didn't have security extensions enabled - I have used one and hence can vouch that a u-boot running as bare-metal s/w helped me in early SoC bringup. In ARMv8, we still have the AArch32 state which still has a ID_PFR1_EL1 register, with the same definition for security extension bits. I agree that for AArch64 state, it makes sense that the s/w to be launched at reset (usually a BootROM or ATF) executes in a Secure aware (i.e. is EL3 aware) and then provides control to a bootloader running in EL2 world (the case presently with UEFI). But that binds the bootloader, in this case u-boot, with an ATF being
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
On 14-01-25 11:46 AM, bhupesh.sha...@freescale.com [via U-Boot] wrote: snip However, if we set up u-boot so that it can wake up at any security level and migrate to non-secure EL1, that might be a nice compromise. But having specific EL3 startup assumptions and code that is always present in u-boot seems like the wrong approach to me. At the very least, we should wrap the EL3 code in a CONFIG option since this is not the planned entry state for final deployment. ... You seem to miss a critical detail here, security extensions were also part of the ARMv7 architecture (although optional) and were controlled by the ID_PFR1, Processor Feature Register 1, Security Extensions, bits[7:4]: Permitted values are: 0b Not implemented. 0b0001 Security Extensions implemented. So, there was a likelihood that some ARMv7 SoCs still didn't have security extensions enabled - I have used one and hence can vouch that a u-boot running as bare-metal s/w helped me in early SoC bringup. In ARMv8, we still have the AArch32 state which still has a ID_PFR1_EL1 register, with the same definition for security extension bits. I agree that for AArch64 state, it makes sense that the s/w to be launched at reset (usually a BootROM or ATF) executes in a Secure aware (i.e. is EL3 aware) and then provides control to a bootloader running in EL2 world (the case presently with UEFI). But that binds the bootloader, in this case u-boot, with an ATF being available before the first early bootloader s/w can be used to play-around with the Pre-SoC emulators or even the SoC. A midway solution can be still have u-boot AArch64 EL3 compliant, but under a #ifdef which gets turned-off when u-boot is launched with ATF and turned-on when u-boot is launched as the 1st s/w component on the SoC (and in this case u-boot starts up in secure EL2 and assumes that all boot-time or run-time security settings are taken care of by the ATF and in case any board/platform specific security settings need to be applied the u-boot code can do the same as it is running in secure EL2). I think that should make both the world's happy. That's exactly what I suggested earlier when I mentioned a CONFIG option for EL3-specific code. Thanks for the detailed and clear response. I add David Feng in cc here for his views on the same and request others as well to pitch in with their thoughts. snip ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot ___ If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-v15-00-10-arm64-patch-tp167751p172379.html To unsubscribe from [PATCH v15 00/10] arm64 patch, visit http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_codenode=167751code=ZHJhbWJvQGJyb2FkY29tLmNvbXwxNjc3NTF8LTQ0Nzc3MTIxNQ== -- View this message in context: http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-v15-00-10-arm64-patch-tp167751p172383.html Sent from the U-Boot mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi Bhupesh, -Original Message- From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of drambo Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:32 AM To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi Bhupesh, U-boot doesn't have ARM trusted firmware support as of now. U-boot for ARMv8 starts in EL3, whereas UEFI starts in EL2 as trusted firmware itself is working in EL3. Since the ATF software doesn't really care whether it is loading uefi or u-boot and since it wants to load non-secure images as EL2 or EL1 (https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted- firmware/blob/master/docs/user-guide.md See section Normal World Software Execution), why would we want to assume u-boot starts in EL3 mode by default? If we want to support EL3 execution for convenience to those that don't have ATF setup, that might make sense, but then shouldn't initial EL3 execution and subsequent switching levels be debug CONFIG options? Thanks. In the past I remember using u-boot as the bare-metal s/w to debug a Silicon without any BootROM/firmware code running before the same on ARM 32-bit architectures. Many of our customers (in the embedded market) use U-Boot in such a way very successfully. The ATF is presently tested only for UEFI and UEFI comes up in EL2 while the ATF itself is running in EL3. I don't know what would be the popular vote on this, but personally I feel that the u-boot for ARMv8 should also be launched by the ATF (similar to UEFI) and should start execution in EL2 so that it can launch a hypervisor (running in EL2) or Linux (running in EL1). But this might hurt the popular premise that u-boot can be used as a bare-metal s/w to debug a silicon without additional firmware components. Perhaps u-boot experts can guide us on this ! I have to admit that I'm only reading up on the complexities of the security model of aarch64, but my gut response (cf. [1] is that real security stems from few code rather than adding layer over layer. With this in mind, I'd really like to see that U-Boot with its well known and tested code base can still be the root of trust in an embedded product (i.e. EL3 as far as I understand). Many of the embedded U-Boot users who excercise full control over the whole software stack very likely want to see the same. The interesting question will be if we can reconcile the requirements of classic embedded U-Boot users and this OEM server market that seems to drive much of these new concepts here. But I sincerely hope so. After all, in the end we want to boot an OS to get the real work done ;) Best wishes Detlev [1] Reading one presentation I found about ATF[2] actually made my head hurt around page 12 which looks more like security soup than clearcut concepts, but maybe I'm just not into all the details yet. [2] http://lcu-13.zerista.com/event/member/85121 -- Our choice isn't between a digital world where the NSA can eavesdrop and one where the NSA is prevented from eavesdropping; it's between a digital world that is vulnerable to allattackers, and one that is secure for all users. -- Bruce Schneier -- 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] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
On 14-01-23 07:58 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote: Hi Bhupesh, -Original Message- From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of drambo Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:32 AM To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi Bhupesh, U-boot doesn't have ARM trusted firmware support as of now. U-boot for ARMv8 starts in EL3, whereas UEFI starts in EL2 as trusted firmware itself is working in EL3. Since the ATF software doesn't really care whether it is loading uefi or u-boot and since it wants to load non-secure images as EL2 or EL1 (https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted- firmware/blob/master/docs/user-guide.md See section Normal World Software Execution), why would we want to assume u-boot starts in EL3 mode by default? If we want to support EL3 execution for convenience to those that don't have ATF setup, that might make sense, but then shouldn't initial EL3 execution and subsequent switching levels be debug CONFIG options? Thanks. In the past I remember using u-boot as the bare-metal s/w to debug a Silicon without any BootROM/firmware code running before the same on ARM 32-bit architectures. Many of our customers (in the embedded market) use U-Boot in such a way very successfully. armv8 and ATF bring in a new security model and with that, secure monitor/dispatch, secure OS support and secure power control. It may not be good to assume that we can work in a historical way here. The ATF is presently tested only for UEFI and UEFI comes up in EL2 while the ATF itself is running in EL3. I don't know what would be the popular vote on this, but personally I feel that the u-boot for ARMv8 should also be launched by the ATF (similar to UEFI) and should start execution in EL2 so that it can launch a hypervisor (running in EL2) or Linux (running in EL1). But this might hurt the popular premise that u-boot can be used as a bare-metal s/w to debug a silicon without additional firmware components. Perhaps u-boot experts can guide us on this ! I have to admit that I'm only reading up on the complexities of the security model of aarch64, but my gut response (cf. [1] is that real security stems from few code rather than adding layer over layer. With this in mind, I'd really like to see that U-Boot with its well known and tested code base can still be the root of trust in an embedded product (i.e. EL3 as far as I understand). EL3 is the highest level of trust, and the new armv8 security model treats uefi/u-boot as non-secure firmware. The ATF trusted firmware needs to run, initialize secure hardware, load trusted images, and ultimately launch the non-secure OS loader (uefi or u-boot). As such, I think that running uefi or u-boot at EL3 violates the current arm security model i.e. u-boot cannot be the root of trust in this architecture since it is non-secure. Having non-secure firmware run at the same level as the secure dispatcher and secure monitor will fail any secure audit in my opinion. However, if we set up u-boot so that it can wake up at any security level and migrate to non-secure EL1, that might be a nice compromise. But having specific EL3 startup assumptions and code that is always present in u-boot seems like the wrong approach to me. At the very least, we should wrap the EL3 code in a CONFIG option since this is not the planned entry state for final deployment. Note that these are just my opinions above. Any ARM security experts would be welcome to contribute thoughts here. Many of the embedded U-Boot users who excercise full control over the whole software stack very likely want to see the same. The ATF secure software is freely available. The interesting question will be if we can reconcile the requirements of classic embedded U-Boot users and this OEM server market that seems to drive much of these new concepts here. But I sincerely hope so. After all, in the end we want to boot an OS to get the real work done ;) As armv8 goes mobile, we have less of a server market issue and more of a mobile security issue. Best wishes Detlev [1] Reading one presentation I found about ATF[2] actually made my head hurt around page 12 which looks more like security soup than clearcut concepts, but maybe I'm just not into all the details yet. [2] http://lcu-13.zerista.com/event/member/85121 ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi Bhupesh, U-boot doesn't have ARM trusted firmware support as of now. U-boot for ARMv8 starts in EL3, whereas UEFI starts in EL2 as trusted firmware itself is working in EL3. Since the ATF software doesn't really care whether it is loading uefi or u-boot and since it wants to load non-secure images as EL2 or EL1 (https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/docs/user-guide.md See section Normal World Software Execution), why would we want to assume u-boot starts in EL3 mode by default? If we want to support EL3 execution for convenience to those that don't have ATF setup, that might make sense, but then shouldn't initial EL3 execution and subsequent switching levels be debug CONFIG options? Thanks. Regards, Darwin Rambo -- View this message in context: http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-v15-00-10-arm64-patch-tp167751p172079.html Sent from the U-Boot mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi Darwin, -Original Message- From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of drambo Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:32 AM To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi Bhupesh, U-boot doesn't have ARM trusted firmware support as of now. U-boot for ARMv8 starts in EL3, whereas UEFI starts in EL2 as trusted firmware itself is working in EL3. Since the ATF software doesn't really care whether it is loading uefi or u-boot and since it wants to load non-secure images as EL2 or EL1 (https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted- firmware/blob/master/docs/user-guide.md See section Normal World Software Execution), why would we want to assume u-boot starts in EL3 mode by default? If we want to support EL3 execution for convenience to those that don't have ATF setup, that might make sense, but then shouldn't initial EL3 execution and subsequent switching levels be debug CONFIG options? Thanks. In the past I remember using u-boot as the bare-metal s/w to debug a Silicon without any BootROM/firmware code running before the same on ARM 32-bit architectures. The ATF is presently tested only for UEFI and UEFI comes up in EL2 while the ATF itself is running in EL3. I don't know what would be the popular vote on this, but personally I feel that the u-boot for ARMv8 should also be launched by the ATF (similar to UEFI) and should start execution in EL2 so that it can launch a hypervisor (running in EL2) or Linux (running in EL1). But this might hurt the popular premise that u-boot can be used as a bare-metal s/w to debug a silicon without additional firmware components. Perhaps u-boot experts can guide us on this ! Regards, Bhupesh ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, bhupesh and drambo: I think current uboot ARMv8's start.S could handle EL2/EL1 case. I have tested it on FVP model, let arm trusted firmware boot u-boot.bin. It seemed ok. The command I used is: ./Foundation_v8 --cores=4 --no-secure-memory --no-gicv3 --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --nsdata=./u-boot.bin@0x0800 I changed CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE = 0x0800 (because ARM trusted firmware will search non-secure firmware entry point at this addr). Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, Scott: After changing to u-boot.elf, it could be run in FVP model. If I run ./Foundation_v8 --image ./u-boot.elf --cores=4 --no-secure-memory, Uboot could be run with FVP model. But no ARM trusted firmware boot info appeared. Such as: Booting trusted firmware boot loader stage 1 .. If I run ./Foundation_v8 --cores=4 --no-secure-memory --no-gicv3 --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --nsdata=./u-boot.elf@0x8000, ARM trusted firmware boot info could appear, but failed to load and run u-boot.elf. So, if I want to use ARM trusted firmware to boot u-boot.elf, any ideas? Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
-Original Message- From: tiger...@viatech.com.cn [mailto:tiger...@viatech.com.cn] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 4:24 PM To: Wood Scott-B07421; Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 Cc: feng...@phytium.com.cn; tr...@ti.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi, Scott: After changing to u-boot.elf, it could be run in FVP model. If I run ./Foundation_v8 --image ./u-boot.elf --cores=4 --no-secure- memory, Uboot could be run with FVP model. But no ARM trusted firmware boot info appeared. Such as: Booting trusted firmware boot loader stage 1 .. If I run ./Foundation_v8 --cores=4 --no-secure-memory --no-gicv3 --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --nsdata=./u-boot.elf@0x8000, ARM trusted firmware boot info could appear, but failed to load and run u-boot.elf. So, if I want to use ARM trusted firmware to boot u-boot.elf, any ideas? U-boot doesn't have ARM trusted firmware support as of now. U-boot for ARMv8 starts in EL3, whereas UEFI starts in EL2 as trusted firmware itself is working in EL3. Regards, Bhupesh ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, Bhupesh: U-boot doesn't have ARM trusted firmware support as of now. U-boot for ARMv8 starts in EL3, whereas UEFI starts in EL2 as trusted firmware itself is working in EL3. Do you mean: when FVP run, the first instruction would be fetched from u-boot.elf? Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote: Dear tiger...@viatech.com.cn, In message fe7aded5c2218b4786c09cd97dc4c49fd12...@exchbj02.viatech.com.bj you wrote: CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/ARMv8/gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- Side note: It is always wrong to use an absolute path name for CROSS_COMPILE. You should use CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- and make sure your PATH is set correctly. Actually, I also give the full path name when defining CROSS_COMPILER variable. This is because I find myself juggling between different compilers, located in different locations for the same build (personal experimentation). Is there some dependency on the PATH variable that I'm missing? Or is this just convention? -Abraham V. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Dear Abraham, In message canie1qok5z97jvu_bzd+k_bszgjh5hxdvqkevah68afca-q...@mail.gmail.com you wrote: It is always wrong to use an absolute path name for CROSS_COMPILE. You should use CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- and make sure your PATH is set correctly. Actually, I also give the full path name when defining CROSS_COMPILER Then you are also doing it incorrectly. Don't worry, you are not alone ;-) variable. This is because I find myself juggling between different compilers, located in different locations for the same build (personal experimentation). Is there some dependency on the PATH variable that I'm missing? Or is this just convention? Using a full path name is bad style, and there is actually no guarantee that it will work correctly. If you are dealing with multiple tool chains you should always set up your PATH correctly; there are scripts available that will help doing that for you (like eldk-switch [1] for our ELDK). [1] http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/ELDK-5/WebHome#Section_1.8.3. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Well I don't see why I have to make one man miserable when I can make so many men happy. - Ellyn Mustard, about marriage ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, Fenghua: Albert has merged arm64 patch set. I have tested and it works fine on Foundation Model. I have downloaded the latest u-boot source code. And compiled it with linaro released gcc: export ARCH=aarch64 export CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/ARMv8/gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- make vexpress_aemv8a -- Then copy u-boot.bin to Foundation_v8's directory, and runs: ./Foundation_v8 --cores=4 --no-secure-memory --visualization --gicv3 --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --data=./u-boot.bin@0x800 But it failed to jump to u-boot. It seems the Foundation_v8 has hang. What is wrong with it? Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, experts: I have tried to boot uefi bootloader with FVP model,it is ok! ./Foundation_v8 --cores=4 --no-secure-memory --visualization --gicv3 --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --data=./uefi.fd@0x800 BL1--BL2--...uefi.fd But booting uboot.bin, it still failed. Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
-Original Message- From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of tiger...@viatech.com.cn Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM To: feng...@phytium.com.cn Cc: tr...@ti.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Wood Scott-B07421 Subject: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi, experts: I have tried to boot uefi bootloader with FVP model,it is ok! ./Foundation_v8 --cores=4 --no-secure-memory --visualization --gicv3 --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --data=./uefi.fd@0x800 Which ARMv8 foundation model version you are using. I one I have doesn't support GiCv3. UEFI supports both GiCv3 and v2 whereas I believe uboot is only tested for GiCv2. BL1--BL2--...uefi.fd But booting uboot.bin, it still failed. Best wishes, ___ 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] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, sharma: Which ARMv8 foundation model version you are using. I one I have doesn't support GiCv3. UEFI supports both GiCv3 and v2 whereas I believe uboot is only tested for GiCv2. I download FVP from ARM Ltd website: http://www.arm.com/products/tools/models/fast-models/foundation-model.ph p how to identify this FVP's version number? I tried to run : ./Foundation_v8 --cores=4 --no-secure-memory --visualization --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --data=./u-boot.bin@0x800 Not use --gicv3 parameter, it still failed to jump to u-boot.bin Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, sharma: ./Foundation_v8 --cores=4 --no-secure-memory --visualization --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --data=./u-boot.bin@0x800 Is the TEXT_BASE right? Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
-Original Message- From: tiger...@viatech.com.cn [mailto:tiger...@viatech.com.cn] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:40 PM To: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; feng...@phytium.com.cn Cc: tr...@ti.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Wood Scott-B07421 Subject: Re: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi, sharma: ./Foundation_v8 --cores=4 --no-secure-memory --visualization --data=./bl1.bin@0x0 --data=./u-boot.bin@0x800 Is the TEXT_BASE right? Can you try this command: ./Foundation_v8 --image ./u-boot --cores=4 --no-secure-memory Regards, Bhupesh ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi,Sharma: Can you try this command: ./Foundation_v8 --image ./u-boot --cores=4 --no-secure-memory Error: terminal_1: Listening for serial connection on port 5000 terminal_2: Listening for serial connection on port 5001 terminal_0: Listening for serial connection on port 5002 terminal_3: Listening for serial connection on port 5003 ERROR: an unexpected exception error has occurred inside the model terminate called after throwing an instance of 'ObjectLoaderError' what(): ./u-boot.bin: error while loading 'AXYS 'in'-file' file: fgets: Success ./run.sh: line 3: 25702 Aborted ./Foundation_v8 --image ./u-boot.bin --cores=4 --no-secure-memory So, maybe current FVP's version is newer! ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Not the u-boot.bin, only u-boot: ./Foundation_v8 --image ./u-boot --cores=4 --no-secure-memory Regards, Bhupesh -Original Message- From: tiger...@viatech.com.cn [mailto:tiger...@viatech.com.cn] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:52 PM To: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; feng...@phytium.com.cn Cc: tr...@ti.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Wood Scott-B07421 Subject: Re: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi,Sharma: Can you try this command: ./Foundation_v8 --image ./u-boot --cores=4 --no-secure-memory Error: terminal_1: Listening for serial connection on port 5000 terminal_2: Listening for serial connection on port 5001 terminal_0: Listening for serial connection on port 5002 terminal_3: Listening for serial connection on port 5003 ERROR: an unexpected exception error has occurred inside the model terminate called after throwing an instance of 'ObjectLoaderError' what(): ./u-boot.bin: error while loading 'AXYS 'in'-file' file: fgets: Success ./run.sh: line 3: 25702 Aborted ./Foundation_v8 --image ./u-boot.bin --cores=4 --no-secure-memory So, maybe current FVP's version is newer! ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, sharma: Not the u-boot.bin, only u-boot: ./Foundation_v8 --image ./u-boot --cores=4 --no-secure-memory FVP model print: Simulation is started Then not run further. Based on arm open source firmware doc, should use Foundation_v8 as below format: ./Foundation_v8 \ --cores=4 \ --no-secure-memory\ --visualization \ --gicv3 \ --data=path to bl1.bin@0x0\ --data=path to UEFI binary@0x800 \ After compiled u-boot source code, there are 3 u-boot bin files: u-boot : 1.4MB u-boot.bin : 205KB u-boot.elf : 270KB So, we should use u-boot? Not u-boot.bin? Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 05:23 -0600, Sharma Bhupesh-B45370 wrote: Not the u-boot.bin, only u-boot: ./Foundation_v8 --image ./u-boot --cores=4 --no-secure-memory You need to use u-boot.elf, not the unrelocated u-boot. -Scott ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, Scott: You need to use u-boot.elf, not the unrelocated u-boot. Thanks a lot! After changing to u-boot.elf, it could be run in FVP model. Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
-Original Messages- From: tiger...@viatech.com.cn Sent Time: 2014-01-15 08:45:16 (Wednesday) To: scottw...@freescale.com, bhupesh.sha...@freescale.com Cc: feng...@phytium.com.cn, tr...@ti.com, u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support Hi, Scott: You need to use u-boot.elf, not the unrelocated u-boot. Thanks a lot! After changing to u-boot.elf, it could be run in FVP model. Best wishes, I make some supplement. Foundation Model use elf header to determine the entry point, so only support loading elf(or axf) images. Another way, gcc for aarch64 use rela relocation type and no initial value encoded in rela table. Thus, the file 'u-boot' contains wrong relocation information. Scott provided a few patches to deal with this problem. A tool named relocate-rela is provided to fix this problem and u-boot.elf is generated with correct relocation. So, only u-boot.elf could be used with Foundation model. Currently only gicv2 is supported. I will upload a gicv3 patch in these days. Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Dear tiger...@viatech.com.cn, In message fe7aded5c2218b4786c09cd97dc4c49fd12...@exchbj02.viatech.com.bj you wrote: CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/ARMv8/gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- Side note: It is always wrong to use an absolute path name for CROSS_COMPILE. You should use CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- and make sure your PATH is set correctly. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de The only perfect science is hind-sight. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
Hi, Jagan and other experts: Thanks a lot! I will try it at ARM Ltd released Foundation Model. Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
hi Tiger, Sorry! It's a little late. Albert has merged arm64 patch set. I have tested and it works fine on Foundation Model. So, you could get it from git tree of u-boot-arm branch. Regards, David Hi, fenghua: How to get u-boot code with arch/arm/cpu/armv8 directory? I used git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot.git to get latest code, but not find armv8 dir. Best wishes, ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:14 PM, FengHua feng...@phytium.com.cn wrote: hi Tiger, Sorry! It's a little late. Albert has merged arm64 patch set. I have tested and it works fine on Foundation Model. So, you could get it from git tree of u-boot-arm branch. Regards, David Hi, fenghua: How to get u-boot code with arch/arm/cpu/armv8 directory? I used git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot.git to get latest code, but not find armv8 dir. Tom enqueued this on u-boot/master few back, please check! -- Thanks, Jagan. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
