On 28.4.2016 21:05, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 03:12:19PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 28.4.2016 15:07, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:44:50AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >>>> Hi Simon and Tom, >>>> >>>> On 23.2.2016 06:55, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> Enable SPL FIT support for the Linksprite pcDuino3 as an example of how >>>>> this >>>>> feature is used. >>>>> >>>>> This is only for demonstration purposes and is not to be applied. >>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Changes in v2: None >>>>> >>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/board.c | 5 +++++ >>>>> configs/Linksprite_pcDuino3_defconfig | 4 ++++ >>>>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> I have played with SPL_FIT support and find some things >>>> First of all >>>> "mkimage: Support placing data outside the FIT" >>>> (722ebc8f84d5bccd2e70fad1079a0dd40cceddec) >>>> is missing description in usage function to see what -E options does. >>>> >>>> Then I have found a problem with fit address calculation because it has >>>> to be aligned. >>>> I have sent an RFC for it >>>> "SPL: FIT: Align loading address for header" >>>> >>>> I have also added support for ram load for FIT - please review. >>>> "SPL: FIT: Enable SPL_FIT_LOAD in RAM based boot mode" >>> >>> I think these are reasonable. >>> >>>> And also for SD fat based images. >>>> "SPL: FIT: Enable SPL_FIT_LOAD for sd bootmode for fat partions" >>> >>> Ug, sorry. You missed the series from Lokesh that added a bunch more >>> features along those lines. I didn't pull them in since it was past the >>> merge window but will for the next release. >> >> Ah ok. Will look. >> >>> >>>> Is there any plan to support falcon mode? >>>> Also I see kind of interesting to have one fit image with ATF, Secure >>>> OS, bitstreams and U-Boot and Linux kernel + dtbs >>>> Currently spl_load_simple_fit() seems to me expecting to blindly read >>>> the first fit partition and say this is u-boot and then based >>>> configuration description choose dtb. >>>> >>>> Do you have any plan to get even u-boot image from configurations instead? >>>> The we should get a support for loadables. >>> >>> Well, the first itch I needed scratched was supporting many similar >>> platforms in DM+DT from a single binary, and that's what's there today. >>> So long as we can do things in a clean way, all of these other use cases >>> sound interesting and clearly useful to some people, so I don't object. >> >> >> How do you identify platform you are running at? > > In these cases we know there is an I2C EEPROM with information in a > given format so we can go from there.
OK. I see. We have eeproms on boards too which could be used for it too. It means there is sort of plan to add i2c DM eeprom support to SPL. Thanks, Michal _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
