* [U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd: booti: fix the image runtime location
@ 2016-09-12 9:07 Peng Fan
2016-09-12 9:18 ` Peng Fan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peng Fan @ 2016-09-12 9:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
We should not use "bi_dram[0].start + text_offset" as the image dst.
The text_offset maybe 0 for some images, such as XEN. Then the dst
is actually bi_dram[0].start, which maybe the location of spin table.
Let's use "images->ep & ~(ih->text_offset)" as the dst address.
Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
---
cmd/booti.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/cmd/booti.c b/cmd/booti.c
index 6c1c998..afc87e3 100644
--- a/cmd/booti.c
+++ b/cmd/booti.c
@@ -54,7 +54,9 @@ static int booti_setup(bootm_headers_t *images)
* If we are not at the correct run-time location, set the new
* correct location and then move the image there.
*/
- dst = gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start + le64_to_cpu(ih->text_offset);
+ dst = images->ep & ~(ih->text_offset);
+ if (dst < gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start)
+ dst = gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start + le64_to_cpu(ih->text_offset);
unmap_sysmem(ih);
--
2.6.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd: booti: fix the image runtime location
2016-09-12 9:07 [U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd: booti: fix the image runtime location Peng Fan
@ 2016-09-12 9:18 ` Peng Fan
2016-09-12 12:04 ` Tom Rini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peng Fan @ 2016-09-12 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:07:58PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>We should not use "bi_dram[0].start + text_offset" as the image dst.
>The text_offset maybe 0 for some images, such as XEN. Then the dst
>is actually bi_dram[0].start, which maybe the location of spin table.
>
>Let's use "images->ep & ~(ih->text_offset)" as the dst address.
This patch maybe not that correct according to the doc from Linux kernel.
"
The Image must be placed text_offset bytes from a 2MB aligned base
address anywhere in usable system RAM and called there. The region
between the 2 MB aligned base address and the start of the image has no
special significance to the kernel, and may be used for other purposes.
"
Now I do not have a good idea that we may have a spin table in the start
of DRAM or even a small firmware.
Is it better to change gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start?
For example physical dram starts from 0x80000000, but 4K is reserved at the beginning.
So is it ok to change gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start to 0x80001000?
Thanks,
Peng.
>
>Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
>---
> cmd/booti.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/cmd/booti.c b/cmd/booti.c
>index 6c1c998..afc87e3 100644
>--- a/cmd/booti.c
>+++ b/cmd/booti.c
>@@ -54,7 +54,9 @@ static int booti_setup(bootm_headers_t *images)
> * If we are not at the correct run-time location, set the new
> * correct location and then move the image there.
> */
>- dst = gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start + le64_to_cpu(ih->text_offset);
>+ dst = images->ep & ~(ih->text_offset);
>+ if (dst < gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start)
>+ dst = gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start + le64_to_cpu(ih->text_offset);
>
> unmap_sysmem(ih);
>
>--
>2.6.2
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd: booti: fix the image runtime location
2016-09-12 9:18 ` Peng Fan
@ 2016-09-12 12:04 ` Tom Rini
2016-09-13 6:02 ` Peng Fan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2016-09-12 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:18:53PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:07:58PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >We should not use "bi_dram[0].start + text_offset" as the image dst.
> >The text_offset maybe 0 for some images, such as XEN. Then the dst
> >is actually bi_dram[0].start, which maybe the location of spin table.
> >
> >Let's use "images->ep & ~(ih->text_offset)" as the dst address.
>
> This patch maybe not that correct according to the doc from Linux kernel.
> "
> The Image must be placed text_offset bytes from a 2MB aligned base
> address anywhere in usable system RAM and called there. The region
> between the 2 MB aligned base address and the start of the image has no
> special significance to the kernel, and may be used for other purposes.
> "
>
> Now I do not have a good idea that we may have a spin table in the start
> of DRAM or even a small firmware.
>
> Is it better to change gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start?
> For example physical dram starts from 0x80000000, but 4K is reserved at the beginning.
> So is it ok to change gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start to 0x80001000?
So, to be more precise, with v4.5 the memory location restrictions were
relaxed. So we first need to update cmd/booti.c to know that res1 is
now 'flags' and that we must check bit3 to determine where / how to
align the image. In the case of bit3 == 0 we must continue to do what
we do today. In the case of bit3 == 1, we have to decide what exactly
to do. My first thought is to see if images->ep is 2MB aligned and if
so move to images->ep + ih->text_offset. If not 2MB aligned, align that
and then add ih->text_offset.
Then any areas that need to be reserved in memory, wherever they are,
can still be marked off as reserved in the DT.
--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160912/1a5ff6e4/attachment.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd: booti: fix the image runtime location
2016-09-12 12:04 ` Tom Rini
@ 2016-09-13 6:02 ` Peng Fan
2016-09-13 11:19 ` Tom Rini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peng Fan @ 2016-09-13 6:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi Tom,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:04:01AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:18:53PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:07:58PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>> >We should not use "bi_dram[0].start + text_offset" as the image dst.
>> >The text_offset maybe 0 for some images, such as XEN. Then the dst
>> >is actually bi_dram[0].start, which maybe the location of spin table.
>> >
>> >Let's use "images->ep & ~(ih->text_offset)" as the dst address.
>>
>> This patch maybe not that correct according to the doc from Linux kernel.
>> "
>> The Image must be placed text_offset bytes from a 2MB aligned base
>> address anywhere in usable system RAM and called there. The region
>> between the 2 MB aligned base address and the start of the image has no
>> special significance to the kernel, and may be used for other purposes.
>> "
>>
>> Now I do not have a good idea that we may have a spin table in the start
>> of DRAM or even a small firmware.
>>
>> Is it better to change gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start?
>> For example physical dram starts from 0x80000000, but 4K is reserved at the beginning.
>> So is it ok to change gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start to 0x80001000?
>
>So, to be more precise, with v4.5 the memory location restrictions were
>relaxed. So we first need to update cmd/booti.c to know that res1 is
>now 'flags' and that we must check bit3 to determine where / how to
>align the image. In the case of bit3 == 0 we must continue to do what
>we do today. In the case of bit3 == 1, we have to decide what exactly
>to do. My first thought is to see if images->ep is 2MB aligned and if
>so move to images->ep + ih->text_offset. If not 2MB aligned, align that
>and then add ih->text_offset.
>
>Then any areas that need to be reserved in memory, wherever they are,
>can still be marked off as reserved in the DT.
How about the following patch?
If it is ok, I'll send out a formal one.
diff --git a/cmd/booti.c b/cmd/booti.c
index 6c1c998..efa8bc8 100644
--- a/cmd/booti.c
+++ b/cmd/booti.c
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct Image_header {
uint32_t code1; /* Executable code */
uint64_t text_offset; /* Image load offset, LE */
uint64_t image_size; /* Effective Image size, LE */
- uint64_t res1; /* reserved */
+ uint64_t flags; /* Information flags, LE */
uint64_t res2; /* reserved */
uint64_t res3; /* reserved */
uint64_t res4; /* reserved */
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ struct Image_header {
};
#define LINUX_ARM64_IMAGE_MAGIC 0x644d5241
+#define LINUX_PHYSICAL_PLACEMENT (0x1 << 3)
static int booti_setup(bootm_headers_t *images)
{
@@ -54,7 +55,11 @@ static int booti_setup(bootm_headers_t *images)
* If we are not@the correct run-time location, set the new
* correct location and then move the image there.
*/
- dst = gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start + le64_to_cpu(ih->text_offset);
+ dst = gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start;
+ if (le64_to_cpu(ih->flags) & LINUX_PHYSICAL_PLACEMENT)
+ dst = round_up(images->ep, SZ_2M);
+
+ dst += le64_to_cpu(ih->text_offset);
unmap_sysmem(ih);
Thanks,
Peng.
>
>--
>Tom
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd: booti: fix the image runtime location
2016-09-13 6:02 ` Peng Fan
@ 2016-09-13 11:19 ` Tom Rini
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2016-09-13 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 02:02:53PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:04:01AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:18:53PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:07:58PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >> >We should not use "bi_dram[0].start + text_offset" as the image dst.
> >> >The text_offset maybe 0 for some images, such as XEN. Then the dst
> >> >is actually bi_dram[0].start, which maybe the location of spin table.
> >> >
> >> >Let's use "images->ep & ~(ih->text_offset)" as the dst address.
> >>
> >> This patch maybe not that correct according to the doc from Linux kernel.
> >> "
> >> The Image must be placed text_offset bytes from a 2MB aligned base
> >> address anywhere in usable system RAM and called there. The region
> >> between the 2 MB aligned base address and the start of the image has no
> >> special significance to the kernel, and may be used for other purposes.
> >> "
> >>
> >> Now I do not have a good idea that we may have a spin table in the start
> >> of DRAM or even a small firmware.
> >>
> >> Is it better to change gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start?
> >> For example physical dram starts from 0x80000000, but 4K is reserved at the beginning.
> >> So is it ok to change gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start to 0x80001000?
> >
> >So, to be more precise, with v4.5 the memory location restrictions were
> >relaxed. So we first need to update cmd/booti.c to know that res1 is
> >now 'flags' and that we must check bit3 to determine where / how to
> >align the image. In the case of bit3 == 0 we must continue to do what
> >we do today. In the case of bit3 == 1, we have to decide what exactly
> >to do. My first thought is to see if images->ep is 2MB aligned and if
> >so move to images->ep + ih->text_offset. If not 2MB aligned, align that
> >and then add ih->text_offset.
> >
> >Then any areas that need to be reserved in memory, wherever they are,
> >can still be marked off as reserved in the DT.
>
>
> How about the following patch?
> If it is ok, I'll send out a formal one.
Pretty close:
>
> diff --git a/cmd/booti.c b/cmd/booti.c
> index 6c1c998..efa8bc8 100644
> --- a/cmd/booti.c
> +++ b/cmd/booti.c
> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct Image_header {
> uint32_t code1; /* Executable code */
> uint64_t text_offset; /* Image load offset, LE */
> uint64_t image_size; /* Effective Image size, LE */
> - uint64_t res1; /* reserved */
> + uint64_t flags; /* Information flags, LE */
> uint64_t res2; /* reserved */
> uint64_t res3; /* reserved */
> uint64_t res4; /* reserved */
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ struct Image_header {
> };
>
> #define LINUX_ARM64_IMAGE_MAGIC 0x644d5241
> +#define LINUX_PHYSICAL_PLACEMENT (0x1 << 3)
Just '1' not '0x1'
>
> static int booti_setup(bootm_headers_t *images)
> {
> @@ -54,7 +55,11 @@ static int booti_setup(bootm_headers_t *images)
> * If we are not at the correct run-time location, set the new
> * correct location and then move the image there.
> */
> - dst = gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start + le64_to_cpu(ih->text_offset);
> + dst = gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start;
> + if (le64_to_cpu(ih->flags) & LINUX_PHYSICAL_PLACEMENT)
> + dst = round_up(images->ep, SZ_2M);
Can you do this as if/else and expand the comment so that it explains
that earlier it was recommended to be as close to the start of memory
as possible but later a flag was introduced to allow a more flexible
placement? Thanks!
--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160913/d95dab95/attachment.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-09-13 11:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-09-12 9:07 [U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd: booti: fix the image runtime location Peng Fan
2016-09-12 9:18 ` Peng Fan
2016-09-12 12:04 ` Tom Rini
2016-09-13 6:02 ` Peng Fan
2016-09-13 11:19 ` Tom Rini
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.