[meta-xilinx] failure : SD to u-boot SPL to u-boot on zcu102-zynqmp
nathan at nathanrossi.com
Fri Mar 17 10:37:11 PDT 2017
On 18 March 2017 at 02:45, Jean-Francois Dagenais
<jeff.dagenais at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 03:16, Nathan Rossi <nathan at nathanrossi.com> wrote:
>> On 17 March 2017 at 05:27, Jean-Francois Dagenais
>> <jeff.dagenais at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is it ok for me not to care about the PMU FW or ATF at this point of our
>> For PMU Firmware, sure you can probably ignore it and use the
>> xilinx-v2016.4 kernel and u-boot. ATF is needed though since a psci
>> implementation is needed that can handle cpu bringup.
> Ok, help me make sure I understand from having read your whole answer. I only
> need to provide an alternate (TBD) PMU FW because I am using u-boot-xlnx/master
> and something was added since u-boot xilinx-v2016.4 that requires it?
Not alternate, since given the error you have not loaded any pmu
firmware. But yes, this is only relevant because you are using
The commit that introduced the requirement is
> And did you just misprint "xilinx-v2016.4 kernel" instead of "u-boot"?
Well I was not sure if you were also using the master branch of
linux-xlnx or not, but linux-xlnx master has the same requirements for
> Did you mean I should use u-boot (upstream) instead of u-boot-xlnx?
No you will want to use u-boot-xlnx at the moment. But Michal might be
able to give you a better status on using zcu102 with upstream u-boot.
> You can tell I am confused! It'll get better within a few weeks! ;) Until
> then, please put more info that's not too much trouble. :)
>> It is ok for the U-Boot build to succeed without a psu_init_gpl, since
>> it is common to use FSBL as a loader. Which is normally just loading
>> the full U-Boot so SPL is not needed in that case. But the meta-xilinx
>> layer does have a hard fail (for zynq at least, but will be for zynqmp
>> too) if you try to build/deploy SPL (SPL_BINARY = "spl/boot.bin" is
>> set) and nothing is providing the ps*_init_gpl files.
> I'm no expert on u-boot (yet ;) but I think this smells trouble. Maybe not for
> meta-xilinx supported builds, but for integrators such as myself and all the
> other OEMs which will use meta-xilinx as a base.
> I understand about an SPL-less build. Perhaps the Makefile could inspect
> CONFIG_SPL_BUILD and fail if the psu_init_gpl files aren't found. You don't get
> very far with a "psu_init"-less SPL, but much better if failure occurs at build
> time. I can can attempt a patch in board/xilinx/zynqmp/Makefile unless you think
> its a bad idea.
I think its probably a good idea to have it fail if the ps*_init files
are missing, this probably would apply to zynq as well. But this is
something that would best be discussed on the u-boot list? or maybe
Michal can chime in here too?
>> On a side note, you should be able to just copy the psu_init_gpl files
>> from master u-boot-xlnx and use them in the xilinx-v2016.4 version
>> (which doesn't have the pmufw requirements).
> My first tries were with u-boot-xlnx (v2016.4) and the SPL almost didn't start
> at all. It may be related to 7d355473f34a (mmc: sdhci: zynqmp: Add support of
> SD3.0) not being there yet. I did not try exactly your idea though. I will get
> to it soon if nothing else works.
> Can I not change something in the defconfig to remove the extra PMUFW dependency?
You might be able to hack around it, but I wouldn't recommend going
down that path.
More information about the meta-xilinx