Re: [PATCH 00/45] AT91, at91sam9x5ek updates
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:18 AM, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: When booting from an SD-Card/NOR-Flash/USB would I then need to use at91bootstrap, or can I use only barebox? If I move forward with this and I can find an 9263 evaluation kit I would then also update this. >>> On 9263 the sram is huge so you can build barebox as first stage >> >> Good - simplicity is good. >> > > For at91sam9x5ek I had to use at91bootstrap since there is first > stage loader in Barebox for it. I don't know about 9263, but I trust > Jean-Christophe to be correct on this one. I’ve patch for all the at91 soc for the pbl and nand and mmc but I’m really busy those days on EFI boot support and secure boot. To be able to pass microsoft certification so we can use barebox to boot linux or even windows. So I’ll try to dig them later Best Regards, J. > >>> >>> I add this a long time ago on usb_a9263_bootstrap_defconfig >>> or other (all the EK). >>> >>> This will build a barebox that can load you image from multiple source in a >>> sequence >>> >>> and then use a std barebox >>> >>> To switch to DT you will have to import the DT I did for the kernel >> OK, should be straighforward. >> >>> and replace the hw i2c by a i2c gpio as the i2c IP on at91 has a lot of >>> quirks >>> and for barebox it will not make sense to port it >> Seems less straightforward but doable. >> > > Not sure what the situation on 9263 is, but FWIW, kernel DT file from > the kernel for 9x5ek secifies I2C0 as GPIO bitbanged on, and I believe > I had it working so hopefully it would be just a DT related change > that you'd need to do. > > Thanks, > Andrey Smirnov ___ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Re: [PATCH 00/45] AT91, at91sam9x5ek updates
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: >> > >> > When booting from an SD-Card/NOR-Flash/USB would I then need >> > to use at91bootstrap, or can I use only barebox? >> > >> > If I move forward with this and I can find an 9263 >> > evaluation kit I would then also update this. >> On 9263 the sram is huge so you can build barebox as first stage > > Good - simplicity is good. > For at91sam9x5ek I had to use at91bootstrap since there is first stage loader in Barebox for it. I don't know about 9263, but I trust Jean-Christophe to be correct on this one. >> >> I add this a long time ago on usb_a9263_bootstrap_defconfig >> or other (all the EK). >> >> This will build a barebox that can load you image from multiple source in a >> sequence >> >> and then use a std barebox >> >> To switch to DT you will have to import the DT I did for the kernel > OK, should be straighforward. > >> and replace the hw i2c by a i2c gpio as the i2c IP on at91 has a lot of >> quirks >> and for barebox it will not make sense to port it > Seems less straightforward but doable. > Not sure what the situation on 9263 is, but FWIW, kernel DT file from the kernel for 9x5ek secifies I2C0 as GPIO bitbanged on, and I believe I had it working so hopefully it would be just a DT related change that you'd need to do. Thanks, Andrey Smirnov ___ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Re: [PATCH 00/45] AT91, at91sam9x5ek updates
> > > > When booting from an SD-Card/NOR-Flash/USB would I then need > > to use at91bootstrap, or can I use only barebox? > > > > If I move forward with this and I can find an 9263 > > evaluation kit I would then also update this. > On 9263 the sram is huge so you can build barebox as first stage Good - simplicity is good. > > I add this a long time ago on usb_a9263_bootstrap_defconfig > or other (all the EK). > > This will build a barebox that can load you image from multiple source in a > sequence > > and then use a std barebox > > To switch to DT you will have to import the DT I did for the kernel OK, should be straighforward. > and replace the hw i2c by a i2c gpio as the i2c IP on at91 has a lot of quirks > and for barebox it will not make sense to port it Seems less straightforward but doable. I will see if I can find time to give it a try and then post patches. Sam ___ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Re: [PATCH 00/45] AT91, at91sam9x5ek updates
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > Hi Andrey, > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 02:53:11PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I recently had a chance to work with at91sam9x5ek board and as a part >> of that effort I converted the code to support features found in >> Barebox for i.MX based SoCs. Most notably this patchset converts >> at91sam9x5ek to use multi-image PBL build process as well as adds >> support for board initialization from attached devicetree blob. >> >> Sascha, at least for now, all of the patches, in chronological order, >> are included in this submission. However if this proves to be too >> burdensome to review, I'd be more than happy to split it into several >> individual submissions. One such division could be: >> >> - Generic bug fixes/infrastructure enhancements >> - Peripheral drivers updates >> - at91sam9x5ek specific changes >> >> Please let me know if that is preferrable. > > I had a short look at all patches, overall they look good. Nevertheless > it would be good to sort them like you suggested. It just makes it > easier to apply. > OK, will do. > Thanks for working on this, a general AT91 overhaul was long overdue. I > hope this series prepares a path to cleanup the other AT91 SoCs aswell. > Yeah, I have a bit more AT91 based hardware (at least SAMA5D3 Xplained board and maybe more), so I was hoping to get those done after this merge request. > The clock support you ported over from the kernel is for all AT91 SoCs > and not only one, right? Yeah, I belive it should be usable by the whole AT91 family. Thanks, Andrey ___ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Re: [PATCH 00/45] AT91, at91sam9x5ek updates
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > Hi Andrey. > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 02:53:11PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I recently had a chance to work with at91sam9x5ek board and as a part >> of that effort I converted the code to support features found in >> Barebox for i.MX based SoCs. Most notably this patchset converts >> at91sam9x5ek to use multi-image PBL build process as well as adds >> support for board initialization from attached devicetree blob. > > Impressive series - looks good! And timing was good. > > I have a proprietary at91sam9263 based bord that is familiar > with the 9263 evaluation kit. > The current bootloader is latest bootstrap + an ancient U-Boot. > As we have another board (i.MX6 based) there is some synergy into > using the same bootloader on both boards. > > Can you give any hints on what needs to be done on top of > your patch-set to support the 9263 evalutation kit? > > When booting from an SD-Card/NOR-Flash/USB would I then need > to use at91bootstrap, or can I use only barebox? > > If I move forward with this and I can find an 9263 > evaluation kit I would then also update this. On 9263 the sram is huge so you can build barebox as first stage I add this a long time ago on usb_a9263_bootstrap_defconfig or other (all the EK). This will build a barebox that can load you image from multiple source in a sequence and then use a std barebox To switch to DT you will have to import the DT I did for the kernel and replace the hw i2c by a i2c gpio as the i2c IP on at91 has a lot of quirks and for barebox it will not make sense to port it Best Regards, J. ___ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Re: [PATCH 00/45] AT91, at91sam9x5ek updates
Hi Andrey. On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 02:53:11PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I recently had a chance to work with at91sam9x5ek board and as a part > of that effort I converted the code to support features found in > Barebox for i.MX based SoCs. Most notably this patchset converts > at91sam9x5ek to use multi-image PBL build process as well as adds > support for board initialization from attached devicetree blob. Impressive series - looks good! And timing was good. I have a proprietary at91sam9263 based bord that is familiar with the 9263 evaluation kit. The current bootloader is latest bootstrap + an ancient U-Boot. As we have another board (i.MX6 based) there is some synergy into using the same bootloader on both boards. Can you give any hints on what needs to be done on top of your patch-set to support the 9263 evalutation kit? When booting from an SD-Card/NOR-Flash/USB would I then need to use at91bootstrap, or can I use only barebox? If I move forward with this and I can find an 9263 evaluation kit I would then also update this. Sam ___ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
Re: [PATCH 00/45] AT91, at91sam9x5ek updates
Hi Andrey, On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 02:53:11PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I recently had a chance to work with at91sam9x5ek board and as a part > of that effort I converted the code to support features found in > Barebox for i.MX based SoCs. Most notably this patchset converts > at91sam9x5ek to use multi-image PBL build process as well as adds > support for board initialization from attached devicetree blob. > > Sascha, at least for now, all of the patches, in chronological order, > are included in this submission. However if this proves to be too > burdensome to review, I'd be more than happy to split it into several > individual submissions. One such division could be: > > - Generic bug fixes/infrastructure enhancements > - Peripheral drivers updates > - at91sam9x5ek specific changes > > Please let me know if that is preferrable. I had a short look at all patches, overall they look good. Nevertheless it would be good to sort them like you suggested. It just makes it easier to apply. Thanks for working on this, a general AT91 overhaul was long overdue. I hope this series prepares a path to cleanup the other AT91 SoCs aswell. The clock support you ported over from the kernel is for all AT91 SoCs and not only one, right? 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- | ___ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
