Hi Stefan, same result without the automount files. I'm not really shure whether I built barebox the intended way. What I did was to add RM_WORK_EXCLUDE += " barebox" to local.conf, Rebuild barebox with bitbake -c cleansstate barebox, removed the three automount files below the imx6 folders and run bitbake -f -c compile barebox and built the image. Did this disable the automount?
Best regards hu > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Riedmüller <s.riedmuel...@phytec.de> > Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 16:16 > To: Hans-Ulrich Schlieben <hu.schlie...@codewrights.de> > Cc: Enrico Jörns <e...@pengutronix.de>; yo...@lists.yoctoproject.org; > bare...@lists.infradead.org; rauc@pengutronix.de > Subject: Re: [RAUC] Private: Re: [yocto] #yocto update the kernel with a rauc > bundle > > Hi Hans-Ulrich, > > On 24.02.20 13:12, Hans-Ulrich Schlieben wrote: > > Hi Enrico, > > > > the boot log looks like this: > > > > > > barebox 2017.12.0 #1 Tue Feb 18 09:49:36 UTC 2020 > > > > > > Board: Phytec phyCORE-i.MX6 Quad with NAND detected i.MX6 Quad > > revision 1.5 > > i.MX6 unique ID: ee803c540f2359d4 > > mdio_bus: miibus0: probed > > eth0: got preset MAC address: 50:2d:f4:1b:af:b1 > > nand: ONFI flash detected > > nand: NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xef, Chip ID: 0xd3 (Winbond > > W29N08GV), 1024MiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64 Bad block table > > found at page 524224, version 0x01 Bad block table found at page > > 524160, version 0x01 > > m25p80 flash@00: n25q128a13 (16384 Kbytes) imx-usb 2184200.usb: USB > > EHCI 1.00 imx-esdhc 2190000.usdhc: registered as 2190000.usdhc > > da9063 da90620: da9062 with id 62.22.ff.1a detected > > state: New state registered 'state' > > state: Using bucket 0@0x00000000 > > netconsole: registered as netconsole-1 > > phySOM-i.MX6: Using environment in MMC malloc space: 0x2fefb480 -> > > 0x4fdf68ff (size 511 MiB) > > mmc0: detected SD card version 2.0 > > mmc0: registered mmc0 > > envfs: no envfs (magic mismatch) - envfs never written? > > running /env/bin/init... > > > > Hit m for menu or any other key to stop autoboot: 0 > > ext4 ext40: EXT2 rev 1, inode_size 256, descriptor size 64 testing for > > update > > ubi0: scanning is finished > > ubi0 error: ubi_read_volume_table: the layout volume was not found > > ubi0 error: ubi_attach_mtd_dev: failed to attach mtd0, error -22 > > failed to attach: Invalid argument booting 'bootchooser' > > booting 'mmc0.0' > > mounted /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc > > mounted /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc > > mounted /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc > > could not open /mnt/mmc0.0/boot/zImage: No such file or directory > > Booting 'mmc0.0' failed: No such file or directory booting 'mmc0.0' > > failed: No such file or directory booting 'mmc0.0' > > mounted /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc > > mounted /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc > > mounted /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc > > could not open /mnt/mmc0.0/boot/zImage: No such file or directory > > Booting 'mmc0.0' failed: No such file or directory booting 'mmc0.0' > > failed: No such file or directory booting 'mmc0.0' > > mounted /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc > > mounted /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc > > mounted /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc > > could not open /mnt/mmc0.0/boot/zImage: No such file or directory > > Booting 'mmc0.0' failed: No such file or directory booting 'mmc0.0' > > failed: No such file or directory booting 'mmc0.1' > > > > > > -> booting mmc0.1 works > > > > So the problem is that barebox mounts /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc and not > > on /mnt/mmc0.0. But what configuration tells barebox to mount > > /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc > > and > > /dev/mmc0.1 on /mnt/mmc0.1? > > There is a /env/init/automount file installed on PHYTEC SOMs which comes from > arch/arm/boards/phytec-som-imx6/defaultenv-physom-imx6-phycore/init/automount > and triggers an automount from /dev/mmc0.0 on /mnt/mmc. > > I'm not sure if this conflicts with the internal automount on /mnt/mmc0.0 but > removing our automount script could be worth a try. > > Stefan > > > > > The configuration parameters are this: > > * bootchooser.system0.boot: mmc0.0 > > * bootchooser.system1.boot: mmc0.1 > > * bootchooser.targets: system0 system1 > > > > Best regards > > > > hu > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Enrico Jörns <e...@pengutronix.de> > > Sent: Wednesday, 19 February 2020 17:28 > > To: Hans-Ulrich Schlieben <hu.schlie...@codewrights.de> > > Cc: yo...@lists.yoctoproject.org; bare...@lists.infradead.org; > > rauc@pengutronix.de > > Subject: Re: [RAUC] Private: Re: [yocto] #yocto update the kernel with > > a rauc bundle > > > > Hi Hans, > > > > Am 18.02.20 um 15:06 schrieb Hans-Ulrich Schlieben: > >> Hi Enrico, > >> > >> I just answered your first mail on the website and thought that will > >> automatically reply to all. Added all lists now, hope these are correct. > > > > ah, I wasn't even aware that there is a website for this ;) > > > >> Thanks to you I found the custom automount in the providers recipes. This > >> mounts /dev/mmc0.0 to /mnt/mmc. > > > > Ok, good that we clarified this. The script should not be required in a > > modern barebox as it has a lot of built-in automounting magic on board. > > > >> After the mount it seems that only when I install a new image the barebox > >> mount /dev/mmc0.0 to /mnt/mmc0.0 works. > > > > This is the point that sounds a little strange, yes. > > > >> Rauc / barebox seems something to change after a bundle update whereas > >> mount /dev/mmc0.0 to /mnt/mmc0.0 fails and the files are only visible in > >> /mnt/mmc. > >> > >> /mnt/mmc works in both cases so I have now /mnt/mmc/boot... for > >> system0 and /mnt/mmc0.1/boot... for system1 > > > > Would be great to see a log of such a failed mount to get a more concrete > > idea what 'failed' actually means. > > > > Best regards, Enrico > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Enrico Jörns <e...@pengutronix.de> > >> Sent: Tuesday, 18 February 2020 01:12 > >> To: Hans-Ulrich Schlieben <hu.schlie...@codewrights.de> > >> Subject: Re: Private: Re: [yocto] #yocto update the kernel with a > >> rauc bundle > >> > >> Hi hu, > >> > >> please keep at least any list in CC so that others can benefit from this > >> discussion, too (Both RAUC and barebox ML would fit here). It also > >> increases the range and thus potential people that may > help here. > >> > >> Am 17.02.20 um 13:58 schrieb Hans-Ulrich Schlieben: > >>> Hi Enrico, > >>> > >>> thank you very much for your help with IMAGE_INSTALL_append = " > >>> kernel-image kernel-devicetree" > >>> that did the trick. > >>> > >>> What i do not understand is how barebox handles the mount names for > >>> my two alternate boot partitions. > >>> The boot on the first partition works only under /mnt/mmc/: > >>> > >>> global.bootm.image="/mnt/mmc/boot/zImage" > >>> global.bootm.oftree="/mnt/mmc/boot/imx6q-phytec-ksp0663.dtb" > >>> global.linux.bootargs.dyn.root="root=/dev/mmcblk0p1 > >>> rootflags='data=journal' wd=60 ipv6.disable=1" > >>> > >>> whereas the second works with /mnt/mmc1/: > >>> global.bootm.image="/mnt/mmc0.1/boot/zImage" > >>> global.bootm.oftree="/mnt/mmc0.1/boot/imx6q-phytec-ksp0663.dtb" > >>> global.linux.bootargs.dyn.root="root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 > >>> rootflags='data=journal' wd=60 ipv6.disable=1" > >>> > >>> In barebox i see both root filesystems under /mnt/mmc0.0 and > >>> /mnt/mmc0.1/. > >>> > >>> When i try to have a symmetrical configuration and rename /mmc/ into > >>> /mmc0.0/ boot on mmc0.0 does not work because it still mounts the > >>> first partition ar /mnt/mmc/. > >> > >> Which version of barebox? > >> > >> It should be sufficient to either say > >> > >> boot mmc0.0 > >> > >> or > >> > >> boot mmc0.1 > >> > >> and barebox will automatically mount the partition, look for a bootspec > >> file under /loader/entries and assemble the required boot options and > >> kernel command line automatically. > >> > >>> What tells barebox to mount during boot mmc and mmc0.1 instead of > >>> mmc0.0 and mmc0.1? > >> > >> Is there any custom automount unit located in you built-in env probably? > >> > >> > >> Best regards, Enrico > >> _______________________________________________ RAUC mailing list
