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 <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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?
Maybe we should memmove the barebox image to MX8MQ_ATF_BL33_BASE_ADDR
instead of inserting handweaved assembly into the binary.
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
