From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: "Raphaël Poggi" <poggi.raph@gmail.com>
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: support of arm64 architecture
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 19:30:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160408173040.GM9102@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACqcpZCMfYE=-5T+m=+fT+TM4gqmPk_6h4AqZoLVSLPL7scBkg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Raphaël,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 02:01:21PM +0200, Raphaël Poggi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am working on porting barebox on arm64 architecture.
>
> So I have some questions about it:
>
> - Is there any interest for barebox to support this architecture ?
Definitely, yes.
>
> - My port is running at EL1 for the moment, does the bootloader have
> to run at EL3 ? If yes, do you have hint to achieve this ?
> I think UEFI is running at EL3, but I am confused about that,
> what is the difference between UEFI and barebox ? Are they both
> booloader ? (I guess it is a "noob" question :/)
UEFI is an interface to the firmware whereas barebox is a firmware. We
could implement a UEFI interface for barebox (the U-Boot guys already
did this). Also barebox can run on top of firmware with a (U)Efi
interface.
>
> - I have some issues with malloc, when I use tlsf all malloc failed,
> but not with dlmalloc implementation, do you have an idea about this ?
Do you have TLSF_64BIT defined? You may have defined it automatically
when you have CONFIG_64BIT defined, but if not tlsf malloc will not
work.
>
>
> At the moment the current limitations of my port are :
> - MMU not implemented
> - barebox running at EL1
> - barebox env not working
> - only test on qemu
>
> If you want to test it:
> https://github.com/raphui/barebox/tree/dev/armv8a_cleanup
From a first look it the arm64 code looks very familiar. Do you think we
could merge it into the arm architecture rather than creating a new
architecture?
I don't know in which exception level barebox should finally run in, but
I don't think that's a showstopper.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-08 17:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-08 12:01 Raphaël Poggi
2016-04-08 17:30 ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
2016-04-11 6:49 ` Raphaël Poggi
2016-04-13 10:56 ` Sascha Hauer
2016-04-08 21:05 ` Lucas Stach
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=20160408173040.GM9102@pengutronix.de \
--to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=poggi.raph@gmail.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