[PATCH 1/7] at91: add test commamd to emulate bootrom boot

[Sascha Hauer]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 02:32:06PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 12:42 Sat 19 Jan     , Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:26:48PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig         |    6 +++
> > >  arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile        |    1 +
> > >  arch/arm/mach-at91/boot_test_cmd.c |   99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 106 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-at91/boot_test_cmd.c
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig
> > > index fcba7fb..e703b3d 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig
> > > @@ -483,4 +483,10 @@ config CMD_AT91MUX
> > >  	bool "at91mux dump command"
> > >  	default y
> > >  
> > > +config CONFIG_CMD_AT91_BOOT_TEST
> > > +	bool "at91_boot_test"
> > > +	help
> > > +	  allow to upload a boot binary to sram and execute it
> > > +	  usefull to test bootstrap or barebox lowlevel init
> > 
> > s/usefull/useful/
> > 
> > > +
> > >  endif
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile
> > > index 53b4dd8..4404d23 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile
> > > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> > >  obj-y += setup.o clock.o gpio.o
> > > +obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_AT91_BOOT_TEST) += boot_test_cmd.o
> > >  
> > >  lowlevel_init-y = at91sam926x_lowlevel_init.o
> > >  lowlevel_init-$(CONFIG_ARCH_AT91RM9200) = at91rm9200_lowlevel_init.o
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/boot_test_cmd.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/boot_test_cmd.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..02e16fd
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/boot_test_cmd.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
> > > +/*
> > > + * Copyright (c) 2012 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>
> > > + *
> > > + * Under GPLv2 only
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#include <common.h>
> > > +#include <command.h>
> > > +#include <libbb.h>
> > > +#include <getopt.h>
> > > +#include <fs.h>
> > > +#include <fcntl.h>
> > > +#include <malloc.h>
> > > +#include <errno.h>
> > > +
> > > +static int do_at91_boot_test(int argc, char *argv[])
> > > +{
> > > +	int opt;
> > > +	u32 *buf32;
> > > +	void *buf;
> > > +	u32 jump = 0;
> > > +	int fd;
> > > +	int ret = 1;
> > > +	char *sram = "/dev/sram0";
> > > +	u32 read_size, write_size;
> > > +	u32 tmp = 0;
> > > +
> > > +	while ((opt = getopt(argc, argv, "j:s:")) > 0) {
> > > +		switch (opt) {
> > > +		case 'j':
> > > +			jump = simple_strtoul(optarg, NULL, 0);
> > > +			break;
> > 
> > Without the 'j' option given the code will jump to 0x0. Is this
> > intended?
> yes at91 we start at 0x0 for the code that run in sram
> > 
> > > +		case 's':
> > > +			sram = optarg;
> > > +			break;
> > > +		default:
> > > +			return COMMAND_ERROR_USAGE;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	if (argc < optind + 1)
> > > +		return COMMAND_ERROR_USAGE;
> > > +
> > > +	buf32 = buf = read_file(argv[optind], &read_size);
> > > +	if (!buf)
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +	write_size = buf32[5];
> > > +
> > > +	printf("size of the size %d\n", read_size);
> > > +	printf("size to load in sram %d\n", write_size);
> > > +
> > > +	if (write_size > read_size) {
> > > +		printf("file smaller than requested sram loading size (%d < %d)\n", write_size, read_size);
> > > +		goto err;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	fd = open(sram, O_WRONLY);
> > > +	if (fd < 0) {
> > > +		printf("could not open %s: %s\n", sram, errno_str());
> > > +		ret = fd;
> > > +		goto err;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	while(write_size) {
> > > +		tmp = write(fd, buf, write_size);
> > > +		if (tmp < 0) {
> > > +			perror("write");
> > > +			goto err_open;
> > > +		}
> > > +		buf += tmp;
> > > +		write_size -= tmp;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	shutdown_barebox();
> > > +
> > > +	__asm__ __volatile__(
> > > +		"mov pc, %0\n"
> > > +		:
> > > +		: "r"(jump)
> > > +		:);
> > 
> > Is this inline assemble needed? Why not
> > 
> > 	void (*jump)(void);
> > 
> > 	jump();
> jump can be NULL

But that's not a reason for inline assembly.

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 |