From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-it0-x244.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::244]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1faPn5-0003wf-Lh for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 18:12:41 +0000 Received: by mail-it0-x244.google.com with SMTP id p4-v6so4411363itf.2 for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 11:12:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180630034900.3324-1-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> <20180630034900.3324-7-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> <20180702062038.23se52uzy2ttrubm@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <20180702062038.23se52uzy2ttrubm@pengutronix.de> From: Andrey Smirnov Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 11:12:17 -0700 Message-ID: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] ARM: i.MX: xload-esdhc: Allow patching first word of the image To: Sascha Hauer Cc: Barebox List On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 11:20 PM Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 08:48:55PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > > Depending on how SD card/eMMC was programmed first byte of the image > > ther may or may not have appropriate branch instruction. Extend > > esdhc_start_image() to allow passing a custom callback that would > > patch the first instruction in memory to correctly redirect the CPU to > > the resto of the code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-imx/xload-esdhc.c | 18 +++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/xload-esdhc.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/xload-esdhc.c > > index 98ebdfcf7..c017a8b10 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/xload-esdhc.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/xload-esdhc.c > > @@ -219,7 +219,8 @@ static int esdhc_read_blocks(struct esdhc *esdhc, void *dst, size_t len) > > } > > > > static int > > -esdhc_start_image(struct esdhc *esdhc, ptrdiff_t address, u32 offset) > > +esdhc_start_image(struct esdhc *esdhc, ptrdiff_t address, u32 offset, > > + u32 (*opcode_b)(u32)) > > { > > void *buf = (void *)address; > > u32 *ivt = buf + offset + SZ_1K; > > @@ -254,6 +255,9 @@ esdhc_start_image(struct esdhc *esdhc, ptrdiff_t address, u32 offset) > > > > bb = buf + ofs; > > > > + if (opcode_b) > > + *(u32 *)buf = opcode_b(ofs); > > + > > If I understand correctly this is to make sure that the bl31 binary > which jumps to MX8MQ_ATF_BL33_BASE_ADDR jumps over the imx header > to the barebox image, right? > That's right. > Maybe we should memmove the barebox image to MX8MQ_ATF_BL33_BASE_ADDR > instead of inserting handweaved assembly into the binary. > Yeah good point, I haven't thought about that. We definitely should be able to do this. But now that I think of it, it should be possible to make second esdhc_read_blocks() call such that the image is placed the way we want it without extra memmove(). I'll give both a try and will update in v2 according to the results. Thanks, Andrey Smirnov. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox