From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6D1C48BE8 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 17:27:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD55F61261 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 17:27:32 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BD55F61261 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gateworks.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AF382BC9; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:27:30 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gateworks.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gateworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@gateworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="WkLP8odj"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 7206682BD5; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:27:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-x1032.google.com (mail-pj1-x1032.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C66482A29 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:27:24 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gateworks.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tharvey@gateworks.com Received: by mail-pj1-x1032.google.com with SMTP id o88-20020a17090a0a61b029016eeb2adf66so8294308pjo.4 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 10:27:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gateworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YM3QZ9TqzuWo6gJldH8kXdGzq4SjHR/o4txIuqOR/78=; b=WkLP8odjanPzk/PEL68g2SrOa7vPklUYnT8v35W6p4W8Xx/pwd9Wk8wMCj4F36Nnwk J6FyWW0fqe/qQovsfxFfBZFPRuNvP+fqEsUKzFzFACv2IGP4aKyrVRLOqaa4EOxn5T2A Lt5hd+bfXu9PFjzugB6q9MNgm2ZMewmZQXx5TkSE/RYkbfwoMBHkenmG8oyBfKqq85EU t8TKOVhlBG0T9HuAnvCywGIrd8atjQ1ZO7l+quYInqz4GBWZ+TFjRCv8QOdLh6wIAK0H yT2tNoPJu2hEMOLskNYgX9Q082iCY4i21zipeqnGIMG0djZM7ZFsmhM37Qbt97DK1XND QWlg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YM3QZ9TqzuWo6gJldH8kXdGzq4SjHR/o4txIuqOR/78=; b=N5Uzs0erbhzgf2qkYzNGaTBh/nCnWpISay3xrp4iG3TUaWKg4rfmf7+h3BPot8uyIt 2EQ//WT7hx0tY43PyoJv/eZUNpCeYYCMNEVSUWaxmSRtQ3IR0HtUgjjy67Hr91vB1L1w 19neIN4R0vLyr4eInT2uWriI1/vKSH78oyPdTSsOWhn1SLtHZzg+tmiCrhlaM8vLZlwX CKvGfSvPEwbQ874tkD5T1edH3LpP5CM7NS5Usi0wSV6YzSfthdR3Y7Dc2Ue3vuvxcUEQ rT/BIogChlZ7B+AfBcwCOyEn2csHVzX5oxD20B+WxwEb6qVZBaghRw4Gf4lEH3oZi1uc zwxw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532egQL55eCswFobsDR5zBQrhV5AZeaS8RJN4u/zVQmit8WzqDIu Y7XMVhujQSOY2sc5jFy39/2OeJwNQmrIm/kCQkK1BA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyaQ/0Qy1E+ZHqMgFnk3s4qQSVTCuqd44C3Mtp5kwRlc81tibVQYx6o/z5OAzoHFfAmVTprc+XuZUB6tVdrFXY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:10c8:: with SMTP id b8mr23140168pje.147.1624037242545; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 10:27:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4c414845-caea-66f9-336b-49b0a361010c@oss.nxp.com> In-Reply-To: <4c414845-caea-66f9-336b-49b0a361010c@oss.nxp.com> From: Tim Harvey Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 10:27:11 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Multi-Soc binary support for i.MX8M Mini/Nano/Plus/? in single boot firmware binary To: "Peng Fan (OSS)" Cc: u-boot , Stefano Babic , Simon Glass , Marek Vasut , Adam Ford , Schrempf Frieder , Fabio Estevam , Jagan Teki , Igor Opaniuk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.2 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:25 PM Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > > On 2021/5/27 23:41, Tim Harvey wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > I support various iMX8M PCB's via board/gateworks/venice that are SOM > > based and we are starting to add SOM's that have different IMX8M variant > > SoC's on them which for various reasons are not binary compatible. I'm > > very interested in coming up with a way to make them binary compatible > > to reduce the number of disk images and boot firmware binaries our users > > work with (along with the confusion of which one they need to use). > > > > From what I see in working thus far with the IMX8M Mini, Nano, and Plus > > boot firmware differs in the following ways: > > - different primary image offsets > > - different dram config (phy training blob, phy cfg, cfg; which total > > about 3KiB for each config which varies based on dram type, soc variant, > > dram topology and bit-mapping) > > - different OCRAM sizes (compat binary would have to use the minimum > > size ie 256K) > > - different ATF binaries > > - different ATF load address > > - different pinmux/padconf/inputsel registers > > - different clk config > > > > The primary image offsets should be able to be dealt with by placing > > jumps at the various offsets and I believe the rest could be dealt with > > via runtime code if the SPL could load soc-specific blobs including dram > > config, ATF, binary firmware blobs from a nice indexed image such as FIT > > or binman. Currently imx8m SPL's use FIT images that are loaded entirely > > into OCRAM which becomes an issue when you have enough dram configs that > > they no longer fit in the OCRAM. > > > > Does anyone agree this is doable or is there something they see that > > would be a show-stopper? > > > > I'm not all that familiar with the merits of binman fs FIT images... I > > think they were developed for different things. I'm not sure if > > either/both are suited for what I'm talking about regarding having the > > SPL raw load binary blobs vs having them tacked onto a FIT image. > > > > I'm not sure if the imx8mq has enough in common to be able to do this > > with either, in fact I'm not even clear with SoC that is (is it what NXP > > calls i.MX 8M?) > > i.MX8MQ not have enough OCRAM for this case. SPL already use TCM here. > Peng, Could you please explain what SoC you are referring to by 'i.MX8MQ'? I don't see that on https://www.nxp.com/products/processors-and-microcontrollers/arm-processors/i-mx-applications-processors/i-mx-8-processors:IMX8-SERIES Is this what NXP calls the 'i.MX 8M'? Best regards, Tim