linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
To: Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org>
Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	"zong@andestech.com" <zong@andestech.com>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	"aou@eecs.berkeley.edu" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Add an Image header that boot loader can parse.
Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 22:32:30 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAhSdy3kjqDahp13gQa0g9GF4gKPQeVgSakZzuP0uYwkCrvdAg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190501164355.ce76wjmq6sszrf5g@excalibur.cnev.de>

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:14 PM Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:42:40PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > On 4/29/19 4:40 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:25:06 PDT (-0700), atish.patra@wdc.com wrote:
> > > > Currently, last stage boot loaders such as U-Boot can accept only
> > > > uImage which is an unnecessary additional step in automating boot flows.
> > > >
> > > > Add a simple image header that boot loaders can parse and directly
> > > > load kernel flat Image. The existing booting methods will continue to
> > > > work as it is.
> > > >
> > > > Tested on both QEMU and HiFive Unleashed using OpenSBI + U-Boot + Linux.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   arch/riscv/include/asm/image.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >   arch/riscv/kernel/head.S       | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >   2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
> > > >   create mode 100644 arch/riscv/include/asm/image.h
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/image.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/image.h
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..76a7e0d4068a
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/image.h
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifndef __ASM_IMAGE_H
> > > > +#define __ASM_IMAGE_H
> > > > +
> > > > +#define RISCV_IMAGE_MAGIC        "RISCV"
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * struct riscv_image_header - riscv kernel image header
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @code0:               Executable code
> > > > + * @code1:               Executable code
> > > > + * @text_offset: Image load offset
> > > > + * @image_size:          Effective Image size
> > > > + * @reserved:            reserved
> > > > + * @magic:               Magic number
> > > > + * @reserved:            reserved
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +struct riscv_image_header {
> > > > + u32 code0;
> > > > + u32 code1;
> > > > + u64 text_offset;
> > > > + u64 image_size;
> > > > + u64 res1;
> > > > + u64 magic;
> > > > + u32 res2;
> > > > + u32 res3;
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > I don't want to invent our own file format.  Is there a reason we can't just
> > > use something standard?  Off the top of my head I can think of ELF files and
> > > multiboot.
> >
> > Additional header is required to accommodate PE header format. Currently,
> > this is only used for booti command but it will be reused for EFI headers as
> > well. Linux kernel Image can pretend as an EFI application if PE/COFF header
> > is present. This removes the need of an explicit EFI boot loader and EFI
> > firmware can directly load Linux (obviously after EFI stub implementation
> > for RISC-V).
> >
> > ARM64 follows the similar header format as well.
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/arm64/booting.txt
>
> Hello Atish,
>
> the arm64 header looks a bit different (quoted from the
> aforementioned URL):
>
>   u32 code0;                    /* Executable code */
>   u32 code1;                    /* Executable code */
>   u64 text_offset;              /* Image load offset, little endian */
>   u64 image_size;               /* Effective Image size, little endian */
>   u64 flags;                    /* kernel flags, little endian */
>   u64 res2      = 0;            /* reserved */
>   u64 res3      = 0;            /* reserved */
>   u64 res4      = 0;            /* reserved */
>   u32 magic     = 0x644d5241;   /* Magic number, little endian, "ARM\x64" */
>   u32 res5;                     /* reserved (used for PE COFF offset) */
>
> What I am unclear about is in which ways a RISC-V PE/COFF header
> differs from an arm64 one as the arm64 struct is longer than your
> RISC-V header and for arm64 the PE offset field is in the last
> field, i.e. outside of the area covered by your RISC-V structure
> definition.  Can you perhaps explain this part in a bit more
> detail or does anybody else have a pointer to a specification of
> the RISC-V PE/COFF header format (I have found a lot of documents
> about COFF in general, but nothing specific to RISC-V).

The only difference compared to ARM64 is the values of code0, code1
and res5 fields.

As-per PE/COFF, the 32bit value at offset 0x3c tells us offset of PE/COFF
header in image.

For more details refer,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable#/media/File:Portable_Executable_32_bit_Structure_in_SVG_fixed.svg

For both ARM64 header and RISC-V image header, is actually the
"DOS header" part of PE/COFF format.

This patch only adds "DOS header" part of PE/COFF format. Rest of
the PE/COFF header will be added when add EFI support to Linux
RISC-V kernel.

Regards,
Anup

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-01 17:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-23 23:25 [PATCH] RISC-V: Add an Image header that boot loader can parse Atish Patra
2019-04-29 23:40 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2019-04-30  5:42   ` Atish Patra
2019-05-01 16:43     ` Karsten Merker
2019-05-01 17:02       ` Anup Patel [this message]
2019-05-01 17:32         ` Atish Patra
2019-05-01 17:00     ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-01 17:11       ` Anup Patel
2019-05-01 17:35         ` Mark Rutland
2019-05-01 19:54         ` Karsten Merker
2019-05-01 20:32           ` Karsten Merker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAAhSdy3kjqDahp13gQa0g9GF4gKPQeVgSakZzuP0uYwkCrvdAg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=anup@brainfault.org \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=atish.patra@wdc.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=merker@debian.org \
    --cc=palmer@sifive.com \
    --cc=zong@andestech.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).