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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
