[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Simon Glass]

Hi Bin (and others interested in U-Boot on x86),

I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.

Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
your way.

Instructions on how to build and run are here:

http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/X86

For this platform 4 binary blobs are needed. This is an unavoidable
feature of the platform at present. The blobs cover flash descriptor,
SDRAM init, video init and Management Engine. Instructions on how to
get these are on the same page.

Here is a list of some missing features:

- README.x86 in the source (mostly the content from the Wiki page
would be a good start)
- MTRR support (for performance)
- Audio
- Chrome OS verified boot (only a rough rebase has been done, I'm not
sure how to track mainline anyway)
- SMI and ACPI support, to provide platform info and facilities to Linux

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Andy Pont]

Hi Simon (and Bin),

> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
> 
> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
> your way.

Thanks for all of your efforts on getting some x86 support into U-Boot.
Hopefully in the new year when project work is back under control I will
have some time to get involved with this - I have almost 20 years experience
porting commercial BIOS and UEFI solutions for x86 hardware and possibly a
bunch of Atom C2750 hardware arriving in January.

Other than the list of missing features, what are your long term
goals/ambitions/desires with x86 support in U-Boot?  From what I can see on
the Coreboot mailing list it isn't the friendliest of people and doesn't
seem to know how to deal with the binary blobs that both Intel and AMD seem
to mandate for their chipsets now.

Andy.

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Simon Glass]

Hi Andy,

On 25 November 2014 at 15:08, Andy Pont <andy.pont@sdcsystems.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon (and Bin),
>
>> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
>> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
>> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
>> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
>>
>> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
>> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
>> your way.
>
> Thanks for all of your efforts on getting some x86 support into U-Boot.
> Hopefully in the new year when project work is back under control I will
> have some time to get involved with this - I have almost 20 years experience
> porting commercial BIOS and UEFI solutions for x86 hardware and possibly a
> bunch of Atom C2750 hardware arriving in January.

Sounds great! I do wonder whether U-Boot could support some UEFI protocols.

>
> Other than the list of missing features, what are your long term
> goals/ambitions/desires with x86 support in U-Boot?  From what I can see on
> the Coreboot mailing list it isn't the friendliest of people and doesn't
> seem to know how to deal with the binary blobs that both Intel and AMD seem
> to mandate for their chipsets now.

It would be nice to make x86 a first-class U-Boot citizen, meaning
that it has a reasonable set of features as required by a reasonable
set of modern boards. That means supporting a few more classes of
chipsets. Then we get all the features that U-Boot has, hopefully
without to much of the BIOS-era baggage that x86 often brings along
(U-Boot is pretty simple to understand). I'm pretty happy that the
current port fits well into the U-Boot philosophy.

The binary blobs are certainly a problem, but we deal with them in
other cases also - e.g. some ARM SoCs require a signed pre-boot image.
Something to discuss I suppose.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Bin Meng]

Hi Simon,

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Bin (and others interested in U-Boot on x86),
>
> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
>
> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
> your way.
>

This is great! Thanks for applying your patch series into the mainline
so quickly. I will start working on my patches soon.

> Instructions on how to build and run are here:
>
> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/X86
>
> For this platform 4 binary blobs are needed. This is an unavoidable
> feature of the platform at present. The blobs cover flash descriptor,
> SDRAM init, video init and Management Engine. Instructions on how to
> get these are on the same page.
>
> Here is a list of some missing features:
>
> - README.x86 in the source (mostly the content from the Wiki page
> would be a good start)
> - MTRR support (for performance)
> - Audio
> - Chrome OS verified boot (only a rough rebase has been done, I'm not
> sure how to track mainline anyway)
> - SMI and ACPI support, to provide platform info and facilities to Linux
>

One question related to ACPI, do we need support pre-ACPI protocols
for handling over resource allocations and interrupt vector assignment
information to the OS? I mean the PIRQ table and MP table. These specs
are really old nowadays, and even commercial BIOS does not always get
those tables correct, but as far as I can see, ACPI tables are more
reliable. I think this is largely because they validate ACPI support
with Windows and Linux which always use ACPI.

Regards,
Bin

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Simon Glass]

Hi Bin,

On 26 November 2014 at 18:44, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>> Hi Bin (and others interested in U-Boot on x86),
>>
>> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
>> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
>> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
>> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
>>
>> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
>> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
>> your way.
>>
>
> This is great! Thanks for applying your patch series into the mainline
> so quickly. I will start working on my patches soon.
>
>> Instructions on how to build and run are here:
>>
>> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/X86
>>
>> For this platform 4 binary blobs are needed. This is an unavoidable
>> feature of the platform at present. The blobs cover flash descriptor,
>> SDRAM init, video init and Management Engine. Instructions on how to
>> get these are on the same page.
>>
>> Here is a list of some missing features:
>>
>> - README.x86 in the source (mostly the content from the Wiki page
>> would be a good start)
>> - MTRR support (for performance)
>> - Audio
>> - Chrome OS verified boot (only a rough rebase has been done, I'm not
>> sure how to track mainline anyway)
>> - SMI and ACPI support, to provide platform info and facilities to Linux
>>
>
> One question related to ACPI, do we need support pre-ACPI protocols
> for handling over resource allocations and interrupt vector assignment
> information to the OS? I mean the PIRQ table and MP table. These specs
> are really old nowadays, and even commercial BIOS does not always get
> those tables correct, but as far as I can see, ACPI tables are more
> reliable. I think this is largely because they validate ACPI support
> with Windows and Linux which always use ACPI.

I vote no. ACPI should be enough.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> On 25 November 2014 at 15:08, Andy Pont <andy.pont@sdcsystems.com> 
wrote:
> > Hi Simon (and Bin),
> >
> >> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
> >> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
> >> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
> >> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
> >>
> >> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
> >> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
> >> your way.
> >
> > Thanks for all of your efforts on getting some x86 support into 
U-Boot.
> > Hopefully in the new year when project work is back under control I 
will
> > have some time to get involved with this - I have almost 20 years 
experience
> > porting commercial BIOS and UEFI solutions for x86 hardware and 
possibly a
> > bunch of Atom C2750 hardware arriving in January.
> 
> Sounds great! I do wonder whether U-Boot could support some UEFI 
protocols.
> 
> >
> > Other than the list of missing features, what are your long term
> > goals/ambitions/desires with x86 support in U-Boot?  From what I can 
see on
> > the Coreboot mailing list it isn't the friendliest of people and 
doesn't
> > seem to know how to deal with the binary blobs that both Intel and AMD 
seem
> > to mandate for their chipsets now.
> 
> It would be nice to make x86 a first-class U-Boot citizen, meaning
> that it has a reasonable set of features as required by a reasonable
> set of modern boards. That means supporting a few more classes of
> chipsets. Then we get all the features that U-Boot has, hopefully
> without to much of the BIOS-era baggage that x86 often brings along
> (U-Boot is pretty simple to understand). I'm pretty happy that the
> current port fits well into the U-Boot philosophy.

I would love to see Intel embedded Guthrie CRB design(No graphics and 4 
GBE eth ports):
  Processor: i7-4702EC 
  PCH: Cave Creek (DH8900CC) 

This will be our next board in not too distant future, we do not
have any x86 experience inhouse though :)

Any chance this could be done?

 Jocke

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Simon Glass]

Hi Jocke,

On 27 November 2014 at 00:59, Joakim Tjernlund
<joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> On 25 November 2014 at 15:08, Andy Pont <andy.pont@sdcsystems.com>
> wrote:
>> > Hi Simon (and Bin),
>> >
>> >> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
>> >> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
>> >> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
>> >> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
>> >>
>> >> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
>> >> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
>> >> your way.
>> >
>> > Thanks for all of your efforts on getting some x86 support into
> U-Boot.
>> > Hopefully in the new year when project work is back under control I
> will
>> > have some time to get involved with this - I have almost 20 years
> experience
>> > porting commercial BIOS and UEFI solutions for x86 hardware and
> possibly a
>> > bunch of Atom C2750 hardware arriving in January.
>>
>> Sounds great! I do wonder whether U-Boot could support some UEFI
> protocols.
>>
>> >
>> > Other than the list of missing features, what are your long term
>> > goals/ambitions/desires with x86 support in U-Boot?  From what I can
> see on
>> > the Coreboot mailing list it isn't the friendliest of people and
> doesn't
>> > seem to know how to deal with the binary blobs that both Intel and AMD
> seem
>> > to mandate for their chipsets now.
>>
>> It would be nice to make x86 a first-class U-Boot citizen, meaning
>> that it has a reasonable set of features as required by a reasonable
>> set of modern boards. That means supporting a few more classes of
>> chipsets. Then we get all the features that U-Boot has, hopefully
>> without to much of the BIOS-era baggage that x86 often brings along
>> (U-Boot is pretty simple to understand). I'm pretty happy that the
>> current port fits well into the U-Boot philosophy.
>
> I would love to see Intel embedded Guthrie CRB design(No graphics and 4
> GBE eth ports):
>   Processor: i7-4702EC
>   PCH: Cave Creek (DH8900CC)
>
> This will be our next board in not too distant future, we do not
> have any x86 experience inhouse though :)
>
> Any chance this could be done?

Maybe...do you have a link to Guthrie somewhere? I can't find it. If
it is sandybridge? If so then it might be very similar to the existing
support.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Joakim Tjernlund]

sjg at google.com wrote on 2014/11/27 17:31:47:
> 
> Hi Jocke,
> 
> On 27 November 2014 at 00:59, Joakim Tjernlund
> <joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Andy,
> >>
> >> On 25 November 2014 at 15:08, Andy Pont <andy.pont@sdcsystems.com>
> > wrote:
> >> > Hi Simon (and Bin),
> >> >
> >> >> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
> >> >> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to 
a
> >> >> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA 
(internal
> >> >> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your 
Atom
> >> >> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
> >> >> your way.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for all of your efforts on getting some x86 support into
> > U-Boot.
> >> > Hopefully in the new year when project work is back under control I
> > will
> >> > have some time to get involved with this - I have almost 20 years
> > experience
> >> > porting commercial BIOS and UEFI solutions for x86 hardware and
> > possibly a
> >> > bunch of Atom C2750 hardware arriving in January.
> >>
> >> Sounds great! I do wonder whether U-Boot could support some UEFI
> > protocols.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Other than the list of missing features, what are your long term
> >> > goals/ambitions/desires with x86 support in U-Boot?  From what I 
can
> > see on
> >> > the Coreboot mailing list it isn't the friendliest of people and
> > doesn't
> >> > seem to know how to deal with the binary blobs that both Intel and 
AMD
> > seem
> >> > to mandate for their chipsets now.
> >>
> >> It would be nice to make x86 a first-class U-Boot citizen, meaning
> >> that it has a reasonable set of features as required by a reasonable
> >> set of modern boards. That means supporting a few more classes of
> >> chipsets. Then we get all the features that U-Boot has, hopefully
> >> without to much of the BIOS-era baggage that x86 often brings along
> >> (U-Boot is pretty simple to understand). I'm pretty happy that the
> >> current port fits well into the U-Boot philosophy.
> >
> > I would love to see Intel embedded Guthrie CRB design(No graphics and 
4
> > GBE eth ports):
> >   Processor: i7-4702EC
> >   PCH: Cave Creek (DH8900CC)
> >
> > This will be our next board in not too distant future, we do not
> > have any x86 experience inhouse though :)
> >
> > Any chance this could be done?
> 
> Maybe...do you have a link to Guthrie somewhere? I can't find it. If
> it is sandybridge? If so then it might be very similar to the existing
> support.

I don't know Intel well yet but here is something to look at:
http://se.mouser.com/new/Intel/intel-i7-4700ec-4702ec/
http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/612/intel-communications-chipset-89xx-series-datasheet-257583.pdf

 Jocke

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On 27 November 2014 at 10:08, Joakim Tjernlund
<joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
> sjg at google.com wrote on 2014/11/27 17:31:47:
>>
>> Hi Jocke,
>>
>> On 27 November 2014 at 00:59, Joakim Tjernlund
>> <joakim.tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Andy,
>> >>
>> >> On 25 November 2014 at 15:08, Andy Pont <andy.pont@sdcsystems.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> > Hi Simon (and Bin),
>> >> >
>> >> >> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
>> >> >> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to
> a
>> >> >> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA
> (internal
>> >> >> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your
> Atom
>> >> >> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
>> >> >> your way.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for all of your efforts on getting some x86 support into
>> > U-Boot.
>> >> > Hopefully in the new year when project work is back under control I
>> > will
>> >> > have some time to get involved with this - I have almost 20 years
>> > experience
>> >> > porting commercial BIOS and UEFI solutions for x86 hardware and
>> > possibly a
>> >> > bunch of Atom C2750 hardware arriving in January.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds great! I do wonder whether U-Boot could support some UEFI
>> > protocols.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Other than the list of missing features, what are your long term
>> >> > goals/ambitions/desires with x86 support in U-Boot?  From what I
> can
>> > see on
>> >> > the Coreboot mailing list it isn't the friendliest of people and
>> > doesn't
>> >> > seem to know how to deal with the binary blobs that both Intel and
> AMD
>> > seem
>> >> > to mandate for their chipsets now.
>> >>
>> >> It would be nice to make x86 a first-class U-Boot citizen, meaning
>> >> that it has a reasonable set of features as required by a reasonable
>> >> set of modern boards. That means supporting a few more classes of
>> >> chipsets. Then we get all the features that U-Boot has, hopefully
>> >> without to much of the BIOS-era baggage that x86 often brings along
>> >> (U-Boot is pretty simple to understand). I'm pretty happy that the
>> >> current port fits well into the U-Boot philosophy.
>> >
>> > I would love to see Intel embedded Guthrie CRB design(No graphics and
> 4
>> > GBE eth ports):
>> >   Processor: i7-4702EC
>> >   PCH: Cave Creek (DH8900CC)
>> >
>> > This will be our next board in not too distant future, we do not
>> > have any x86 experience inhouse though :)
>> >
>> > Any chance this could be done?
>>
>> Maybe...do you have a link to Guthrie somewhere? I can't find it. If
>> it is sandybridge? If so then it might be very similar to the existing
>> support.
>
> I don't know Intel well yet but here is something to look at:
> http://se.mouser.com/new/Intel/intel-i7-4700ec-4702ec/
> http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/612/intel-communications-chipset-89xx-series-datasheet-257583.pdf

Well I don't have one of those. If you send me one I might be able to
do something - it looks interesting and seems to have good docs.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Bruce_Leonard at selinc.com]

Hi Simon and Bin,

u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de wrote on 11/25/2014 01:51:06 PM:

> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> To: U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>
> Cc: "trini at ti.com" <trini@ti.com>
> Date: 11/25/2014 01:52 PM
> Subject: [U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86
> Sent by: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de
> 
> Hi Bin (and others interested in U-Boot on x86),
> 
> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
> 
> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
> your way.
> 
> Instructions on how to build and run are here:
> 
> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/X86
> 
> For this platform 4 binary blobs are needed. This is an unavoidable
> feature of the platform at present. The blobs cover flash descriptor,
> SDRAM init, video init and Management Engine. Instructions on how to
> get these are on the same page.
> 
> Here is a list of some missing features:
> 
> - README.x86 in the source (mostly the content from the Wiki page
> would be a good start)
> - MTRR support (for performance)
> - Audio
> - Chrome OS verified boot (only a rough rebase has been done, I'm not
> sure how to track mainline anyway)
> - SMI and ACPI support, to provide platform info and facilities to Linux
> 

This is awesome!  Thanks so much for the work you two have done on this. 
We've been using u-boot on our PPC platforms for years and love it.  We're 
considering moving to an Atom processor and wanted to continue to use 
u-boot, but were worried about getting it up and running with the FSL from 
Intel so we haven't made the jump yet.  This is going to be a huge leg up 
in my argument for actually getting that project off the ground.  If we 
do, I'll be sure to be pushing out any work we do that isn't in the 
mainline.

Thanks again guys!

Bruce

> Regards,
> Simon
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Simon Glass]

+Bin

Hi Bruce,

On 1 December 2014 at 12:33,  <Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon and Bin,
>
> u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de wrote on 11/25/2014 01:51:06 PM:
>
>> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> To: U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>
>> Cc: "trini at ti.com" <trini@ti.com>
>> Date: 11/25/2014 01:52 PM
>> Subject: [U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86
>> Sent by: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de
>>
>> Hi Bin (and others interested in U-Boot on x86),
>>
>> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
>> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
>> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
>> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
>>
>> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
>> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
>> your way.
>>
>> Instructions on how to build and run are here:
>>
>> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/X86
>>
>> For this platform 4 binary blobs are needed. This is an unavoidable
>> feature of the platform at present. The blobs cover flash descriptor,
>> SDRAM init, video init and Management Engine. Instructions on how to
>> get these are on the same page.
>>
>> Here is a list of some missing features:
>>
>> - README.x86 in the source (mostly the content from the Wiki page
>> would be a good start)
>> - MTRR support (for performance)
>> - Audio
>> - Chrome OS verified boot (only a rough rebase has been done, I'm not
>> sure how to track mainline anyway)
>> - SMI and ACPI support, to provide platform info and facilities to Linux
>>
>
> This is awesome!  Thanks so much for the work you two have done on this.
> We've been using u-boot on our PPC platforms for years and love it.  We're
> considering moving to an Atom processor and wanted to continue to use
> u-boot, but were worried about getting it up and running with the FSL from
> Intel so we haven't made the jump yet.  This is going to be a huge leg up in
> my argument for actually getting that project off the ground.  If we do,
> I'll be sure to be pushing out any work we do that isn't in the mainline.
>
> Thanks again guys!

Sounds good! What Atom are you using? It might be the same one as Bin.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Bruce_Leonard at selinc.com]

Simon,

> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> To: Bruce_Leonard at selinc.com
> Cc: "trini at ti.com" <trini@ti.com>, U-Boot Mailing List <u-
> boot at lists.denx.de>, u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de, Bin Meng 
> <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> Date: 12/01/2014 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86
> Sent by: sjg at google.com
> 
> +Bin
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> On 1 December 2014 at 12:33,  <Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com> wrote:
> > Hi Simon and Bin,
> >
> > u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de wrote on 11/25/2014 01:51:06 PM:
> >
> >> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >> To: U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>
> >> Cc: "trini at ti.com" <trini@ti.com>
> >> Date: 11/25/2014 01:52 PM
> >> Subject: [U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86
> >> Sent by: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de
> >>
> >> Hi Bin (and others interested in U-Boot on x86),
> >>
> >> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
> >> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
> >> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
> >> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
> >>
> >> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
> >> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
> >> your way.
> >>
> >> Instructions on how to build and run are here:
> >>
> >> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/X86
> >>
> >> For this platform 4 binary blobs are needed. This is an unavoidable
> >> feature of the platform at present. The blobs cover flash descriptor,
> >> SDRAM init, video init and Management Engine. Instructions on how to
> >> get these are on the same page.
> >>
> >> Here is a list of some missing features:
> >>
> >> - README.x86 in the source (mostly the content from the Wiki page
> >> would be a good start)
> >> - MTRR support (for performance)
> >> - Audio
> >> - Chrome OS verified boot (only a rough rebase has been done, I'm not
> >> sure how to track mainline anyway)
> >> - SMI and ACPI support, to provide platform info and facilities to 
Linux
> >>
> >
> > This is awesome!  Thanks so much for the work you two have done on 
this.
> > We've been using u-boot on our PPC platforms for years and love it. 
We're
> > considering moving to an Atom processor and wanted to continue to use
> > u-boot, but were worried about getting it up and running with the FSL 
from
> > Intel so we haven't made the jump yet.  This is going to be a hugeleg 
up in
> > my argument for actually getting that project off the ground.  If we 
do,
> > I'll be sure to be pushing out any work we do that isn't in the 
mainline.
> >
> > Thanks again guys!
> 
> Sounds good! What Atom are you using? It might be the same one as Bin.

Not sure yet.  We had originally settled on the first one Intel put out, 
but since we've waited so long and we're not locked in by design yet, 
we'll probably pick a newer generation.  Our products tend to be in 
service for a long time (upwards of 20 years) so we like to get as cutting 
edge as we can without losing a finger :)

Bruce

> 
> Regards,
> Simon

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Bin Meng]

Hi Bruce,

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:28 AM,  <Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com> wrote:
> Simon,
>
>> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> To: Bruce_Leonard at selinc.com
>> Cc: "trini at ti.com" <trini@ti.com>, U-Boot Mailing List <u-
>> boot at lists.denx.de>, u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de, Bin Meng
>> <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
>> Date: 12/01/2014 12:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86
>> Sent by: sjg at google.com
>>
>> +Bin
>>
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> On 1 December 2014 at 12:33,  <Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Simon and Bin,
>> >
>> > u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de wrote on 11/25/2014 01:51:06 PM:
>> >
>> >> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> >> To: U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>
>> >> Cc: "trini at ti.com" <trini@ti.com>
>> >> Date: 11/25/2014 01:52 PM
>> >> Subject: [U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86
>> >> Sent by: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de
>> >>
>> >> Hi Bin (and others interested in U-Boot on x86),
>> >>
>> >> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
>> >> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
>> >> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
>> >> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
>> >>
>> >> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
>> >> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
>> >> your way.
>> >>
>> >> Instructions on how to build and run are here:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/X86
>
>> >>
>> >> For this platform 4 binary blobs are needed. This is an unavoidable
>> >> feature of the platform at present. The blobs cover flash descriptor,
>> >> SDRAM init, video init and Management Engine. Instructions on how to
>> >> get these are on the same page.
>> >>
>> >> Here is a list of some missing features:
>> >>
>> >> - README.x86 in the source (mostly the content from the Wiki page
>> >> would be a good start)
>> >> - MTRR support (for performance)
>> >> - Audio
>> >> - Chrome OS verified boot (only a rough rebase has been done, I'm not
>> >> sure how to track mainline anyway)
>> >> - SMI and ACPI support, to provide platform info and facilities to
>> >> Linux
>> >>
>> >
>> > This is awesome!  Thanks so much for the work you two have done on this.
>> > We've been using u-boot on our PPC platforms for years and love it.
>> > We're
>> > considering moving to an Atom processor and wanted to continue to use
>> > u-boot, but were worried about getting it up and running with the FSL
>> > from
>> > Intel so we haven't made the jump yet.  This is going to be a hugeleg up
>> > in
>> > my argument for actually getting that project off the ground.  If we do,
>> > I'll be sure to be pushing out any work we do that isn't in the
>> > mainline.
>> >
>> > Thanks again guys!
>>
>> Sounds good! What Atom are you using? It might be the same one as Bin.
>
> Not sure yet.  We had originally settled on the first one Intel put out, but
> since we've waited so long and we're not locked in by design yet, we'll
> probably pick a newer generation.  Our products tend to be in service for a
> long time (upwards of 20 years) so we like to get as cutting edge as we can
> without losing a finger :)

I am currently working on patches to support Intel Atom E6xx with
Platform Controller Hub EG20T. This Atom platform aims at the embedded
market. More newer Atom would be Bay Trail, which is an SoC and I
believe Simon is going to support that platform once he gets a board.
The latest Atom would be Braswell. If Intel keeps open for the chipset
datasheet, I think we can try to support that too. We will see.

Regards,
Bin

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Christian Gmeiner]

Hi Bin,

2014-12-02 5:38 GMT+01:00 Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:28 AM,  <Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com> wrote:
>> Simon,
>>
>>> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>> To: Bruce_Leonard at selinc.com
>>> Cc: "trini at ti.com" <trini@ti.com>, U-Boot Mailing List <u-
>>> boot at lists.denx.de>, u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de, Bin Meng
>>> <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
>>> Date: 12/01/2014 12:14 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86
>>> Sent by: sjg at google.com
>>>
>>> +Bin
>>>
>>> Hi Bruce,
>>>
>>> On 1 December 2014 at 12:33,  <Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi Simon and Bin,
>>> >
>>> > u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de wrote on 11/25/2014 01:51:06 PM:
>>> >
>>> >> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>> >> To: U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>
>>> >> Cc: "trini at ti.com" <trini@ti.com>
>>> >> Date: 11/25/2014 01:52 PM
>>> >> Subject: [U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86
>>> >> Sent by: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Bin (and others interested in U-Boot on x86),
>>> >>
>>> >> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
>>> >> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
>>> >> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
>>> >> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
>>> >> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
>>> >> your way.
>>> >>
>>> >> Instructions on how to build and run are here:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/X86
>>
>>> >>
>>> >> For this platform 4 binary blobs are needed. This is an unavoidable
>>> >> feature of the platform at present. The blobs cover flash descriptor,
>>> >> SDRAM init, video init and Management Engine. Instructions on how to
>>> >> get these are on the same page.
>>> >>
>>> >> Here is a list of some missing features:
>>> >>
>>> >> - README.x86 in the source (mostly the content from the Wiki page
>>> >> would be a good start)
>>> >> - MTRR support (for performance)
>>> >> - Audio
>>> >> - Chrome OS verified boot (only a rough rebase has been done, I'm not
>>> >> sure how to track mainline anyway)
>>> >> - SMI and ACPI support, to provide platform info and facilities to
>>> >> Linux
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > This is awesome!  Thanks so much for the work you two have done on this.
>>> > We've been using u-boot on our PPC platforms for years and love it.
>>> > We're
>>> > considering moving to an Atom processor and wanted to continue to use
>>> > u-boot, but were worried about getting it up and running with the FSL
>>> > from
>>> > Intel so we haven't made the jump yet.  This is going to be a hugeleg up
>>> > in
>>> > my argument for actually getting that project off the ground.  If we do,
>>> > I'll be sure to be pushing out any work we do that isn't in the
>>> > mainline.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks again guys!
>>>
>>> Sounds good! What Atom are you using? It might be the same one as Bin.
>>
>> Not sure yet.  We had originally settled on the first one Intel put out, but
>> since we've waited so long and we're not locked in by design yet, we'll
>> probably pick a newer generation.  Our products tend to be in service for a
>> long time (upwards of 20 years) so we like to get as cutting edge as we can
>> without losing a finger :)
>
> I am currently working on patches to support Intel Atom E6xx with
> Platform Controller Hub EG20T. This Atom platform aims at the embedded
> market. More newer Atom would be Bay Trail, which is an SoC and I
> believe Simon is going to support that platform once he gets a board.
> The latest Atom would be Braswell. If Intel keeps open for the chipset
> datasheet, I think we can try to support that too. We will see.
>

That sound really interesting! My company is also using Intel Atom
E6xx based designs
and I would love to see u-boot/coreboot running on them. What is the
current state of your
work?

--
Christian Gmeiner, MSc

https://soundcloud.com/christian-gmeiner

[U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86

[Bin Meng]

Hi Christian,

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Christian Gmeiner
<christian.gmeiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> 2014-12-02 5:38 GMT+01:00 Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>:
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:28 AM,  <Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com> wrote:
>>> Simon,
>>>
>>>> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>> To: Bruce_Leonard at selinc.com
>>>> Cc: "trini at ti.com" <trini@ti.com>, U-Boot Mailing List <u-
>>>> boot at lists.denx.de>, u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de, Bin Meng
>>>> <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: 12/01/2014 12:14 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86
>>>> Sent by: sjg at google.com
>>>>
>>>> +Bin
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bruce,
>>>>
>>>> On 1 December 2014 at 12:33,  <Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com> wrote:
>>>> > Hi Simon and Bin,
>>>> >
>>>> > u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de wrote on 11/25/2014 01:51:06 PM:
>>>> >
>>>> >> From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>> >> To: U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>
>>>> >> Cc: "trini at ti.com" <trini@ti.com>
>>>> >> Date: 11/25/2014 01:52 PM
>>>> >> Subject: [U-Boot] Bare x86 support is merged to u-boot-x86
>>>> >> Sent by: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hi Bin (and others interested in U-Boot on x86),
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I've applied the remaining x86 patches to u-boot-x86. It runs on
>>>> >> chromebook_link (Pixel) with support for most hardware relevant to a
>>>> >> boot loader: SDRAM, SPI, PCI, USB (and USB Ethernet), SATA (internal
>>>> >> 32GB SSD), SD card, LCD, UART, keyboard, EC.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Bin this should be a good base for you to send patches for your Atom
>>>> >> platform and I have no major work pending now so should not get in
>>>> >> your way.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Instructions on how to build and run are here:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/X86
>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> For this platform 4 binary blobs are needed. This is an unavoidable
>>>> >> feature of the platform at present. The blobs cover flash descriptor,
>>>> >> SDRAM init, video init and Management Engine. Instructions on how to
>>>> >> get these are on the same page.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Here is a list of some missing features:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> - README.x86 in the source (mostly the content from the Wiki page
>>>> >> would be a good start)
>>>> >> - MTRR support (for performance)
>>>> >> - Audio
>>>> >> - Chrome OS verified boot (only a rough rebase has been done, I'm not
>>>> >> sure how to track mainline anyway)
>>>> >> - SMI and ACPI support, to provide platform info and facilities to
>>>> >> Linux
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > This is awesome!  Thanks so much for the work you two have done on this.
>>>> > We've been using u-boot on our PPC platforms for years and love it.
>>>> > We're
>>>> > considering moving to an Atom processor and wanted to continue to use
>>>> > u-boot, but were worried about getting it up and running with the FSL
>>>> > from
>>>> > Intel so we haven't made the jump yet.  This is going to be a hugeleg up
>>>> > in
>>>> > my argument for actually getting that project off the ground.  If we do,
>>>> > I'll be sure to be pushing out any work we do that isn't in the
>>>> > mainline.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks again guys!
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good! What Atom are you using? It might be the same one as Bin.
>>>
>>> Not sure yet.  We had originally settled on the first one Intel put out, but
>>> since we've waited so long and we're not locked in by design yet, we'll
>>> probably pick a newer generation.  Our products tend to be in service for a
>>> long time (upwards of 20 years) so we like to get as cutting edge as we can
>>> without losing a finger :)
>>
>> I am currently working on patches to support Intel Atom E6xx with
>> Platform Controller Hub EG20T. This Atom platform aims at the embedded
>> market. More newer Atom would be Bay Trail, which is an SoC and I
>> believe Simon is going to support that platform once he gets a board.
>> The latest Atom would be Braswell. If Intel keeps open for the chipset
>> datasheet, I think we can try to support that too. We will see.
>>
>
> That sound really interesting! My company is also using Intel Atom
> E6xx based designs
> and I would love to see u-boot/coreboot running on them. What is the
> current state of your
> work?
>

The Atom E6xx U-Boot initial port is almost done and I plan to send
patch series by the end of this week. Hopefully it could catch the
last merge window of v2015.01 release.

Regards,
Bin