Hi, On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 09:47, Andy Yan <andy....@rock-chips.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon: > > On 2019/5/23 上午3:39, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 19:43, Andy Yan <andys...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Andre: > > Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> 于2019年5月20日周一 下午11:59写道: > > On Mon, 20 May 2019 14:34:01 +0800 > Andy Yan <andy....@rock-chips.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2019/5/19 上午12:26, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > Instead of this could you: > > - move ATF? > > All rockchip based arm64 ATF run from the start 64KB of dram as this > will give convenient for kernel manage the memory. > > This is just BL31 of ATF, right? > ATF recently gained PIE support for BL31 [1], so by just enabling this in > platform.mk you will get a relocatable BL31 image, with a very minimal > runtime linker. Worked out of the box on Allwinner for me, but YMMV. > So you could load newer ATF builds everywhere. > > > This is not the root case, actually we want put ATF as close as possible to > the start of dram, this give linux kernel convenient to manage the memory. > > But instead of 64KB you could put it at 32KB or 128KB. It's still in > the first 1MB. Linux won't care, right? > > > > Does that help you? > > On the other hand, change the ATF load address will break the > compatibility of the exiting firmware. > > I am not sure what you mean with "compatibility of existing firmware"? > Surely you combine all the firmware components (SPL/TPL/ATF/U-Boot proper) > into one image? And there would be no real mix and match, with older > pre-compiled builds? So by changing the ATF base address and the load > address in TPL at the same time you won't have issues? > > I mean older pre-compiled builds published by rockchip rkbin [1], many > projects and popular boards directly use this , for example Armbian. How to > change the base address of the pre-build binary? > [1] https://github.com/rockchip-linux/rkbin > > Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent here, but mainline U-Boot > should not be bound to the design decisions of old closed-source > binaries. > > Indeed rockchip have submit the ATF support for rockchip platforms to ATF > mainline. But the situation is: we see many people like directly use the > pre-build binary from rkbin, they are used on many popular boards and > projects. Armbian is one of the example for this[0] , it use mainline u-boot, > but use atf from rkbin for some boards. > > So we are really care about the compatibility.
OK I understand that. But perhaps for your newer chips you can start using U-Boot SPL instead of rkbin? Then, we can move away from the limitations. > > [0]https://github.com/armbian/build/blob/master/config/sources/rockchip64.conf > > [...] > Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot