[meta-xilinx] failure : SD to u-boot SPL to u-boot on zcu102-zynqmp

[Nathan Rossi]

On 17 March 2017 at 05:27, Jean-Francois Dagenais
<jeff.dagenais at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 16, 2017, at 15:00, Nathan Rossi <nathan at nathanrossi.com> wrote:
>>
>> If this is the artifact name that u-boot expects then the
>> arm-trusted-firmware recipe should create a deployed symlink with that
>> name as well.
>
> Is it ok for me not to care about the PMU FW or ATF at this point of our
> development?

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.

>
> If I don't populate the SDcard with the atf-uboot.ub, I get farther!
>
>>
>>> NOTICE:  ATF running on XCZU9EG/silicon v3/RTL5.1 at 0xfffea000
>>> NOTICE:  BL31: Secure code at 0x0
>>> NOTICE:  BL31: Non secure code at 0x8000000
>>> NOTICE:  BL31: v1.2(release):a9e3716
>>> NOTICE:  BL31: Built : 16:41:21, Mar  9 2017
>>> PMUFW is not found - Please load it!
>>
>> Yes, the new fun that has begun. The PMU Firmware is to be a hard
>> dependency for the next release (at least that is what I heard) of
>> u-boot-xlnx/linux-xlnx and probably ATF as well.
>>
>> I have been looking at getting meta-xilinx to build the PMU firmware,
>> however since it is actually firmware that runs on a baremetal (with
>> dep on newlib) microblaze it is not quite so straight forward. There
>> are some WIP branches of oe-core and meta-xilinx where I have the
>> firmware building from the github.com/Xilinx/embeddedsw repo. Feel
>> free to play around with it, without hardware its hard to be sure its
>> fully functional but it was working with u-boot-xlnx on the zcu102
>> emulated with qemu-xilinx:
>>
>> https://github.com/nathanrossi/meta-xilinx/commits/nrossi/wip-pmu-firmware
>> https://github.com/nathanrossi/openembedded-core/commits/nrossi/wip/newlib-support
>>
>> At the moment you need to build the firmware separately using the
>> "zynqmp-pmu-microblaze" MACHINE, with bitbake pmu-firmware, and the
>> .elf will be in the deploy dir for that machine. Thought I am not sure
>> of the boot process for SPL with regards to how the pmu-firmware is
>> actually loaded.
>
> Let's say I do that, I need to deploy it to the SD card FAT partition?
>
> I have not focused on PMU FW too much as my understanding from xilinx doc
> was that there was a version pre-programmed on the board and you can
> overwrite it if one is not satisfied with it's behaviour. Am I wrong?
>
>>
>> On a side note, in your first email you changed the UBOOT_MACHINE to
>> "xilinx_zynqmp_zcu102_rev1.0_defconfig", just wanted to query what
>> revision of the zcu102 you have.
>
> It does say 1.0 on it:
> HW-Z1 ZCU102 REVISION 1.0
>
> Without this modification, there is an error in the u-boot-xlnx where it would
> not find the psu_init_gpl specified in the defconfig of revB. Unfortunately, and
> this is a mistake in my opinion, the SPL build doesn't fail if it doesn't find
> the psu_init_gpl for the specified name. (see board/xilinx/zynqmp/Makefile)

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.

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).

>
> At this point of our early development, all I want is a command line in linux...
> ASAP in order to unlock my hardware department.
>
> I will deal with optimizing the boot and improving the power management, secure
> boot and all these low-level subjects later.
>
> Like even the PMU FW, I have the Vivado suite running, I did follow blindly some
> instructions to generate the default PMU FW a few weeks ago. If I could hack
> this as a binary blob into my bitbake at this point I would be happy.
>
> What do you recommend?

If your just trying to bring up a system for development/testing, do
what ever you need to get it working. Since its likely this stuff will
change and or be more polished by the time you need to set it up
properly.

Regards,
Nathan