Re: u-boot + Android 'fastboot' protocol/commands support (was: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build)
Dear Jim Huang, In message you wrote: > > My idea is that we require abstract 'bootloader' component in Android > device/linaro/common, and (patched) 'u-boot' would be the provider of > 'bootloader' component in > device/linaro/Linaro-Evaluation-Build-Hardware. Also, supporting If you are discussing requirements for U-Boot, and plan to get these merged in to mainlineU-Boot one day, it would probably be a good idea to discuss these plans on the U-Boot mailing list as well - ideally before any design is cast in iron. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de The management question ... is not _whether_ to build a pilot system and throw it away. You _will_ do that. The only question is whether to plan in advance to build a throwaway, or to promise to deliver the throwaway to customers. - Fred Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month" ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
On 18 April 2011 08:46, Jim Huang wrote: > On 18 April 2011 14:40, wrote: >> From: Patrik Ryd >> >> In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). >> --- >> tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > hi Patrik, > > Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB? We do at the moment. This patch together with the two others I just sent for review (build.git, use uImage for kernel and uInitrd instead of ramdisk.img) are there to make u-boot happy. And we have included u-boot in the boottarball. (See https://blueprints.launchpad.net/linaro-android/+spec/linaro-android-platform-kernel-boottarball for details) /Patrik > > I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel > image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might > migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations > such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. > > Thanks, > -jserv > >> diff --git a/tasks/kernel.mk b/tasks/kernel.mk >> index a016d6e..f0ebb93 100644 >> --- a/tasks/kernel.mk >> +++ b/tasks/kernel.mk >> @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ android_kernel: >> make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) defconfig >> $(KERNEL_CONFIG) &&\ >> make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) uImage >> >> -$(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel: android_kernel >> - ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel >> \ No newline at end of file >> +$(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage: android_kernel >> + ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage >> \ No newline at end of file >> -- >> 1.7.1 > ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
u-boot + Android 'fastboot' protocol/commands support (was: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build)
On 19 April 2011 14:28, Amit Pundir wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >>> That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot >>> about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already? >> Yes, I was told that someone (TI?) had a public tree with it. If all >> goes well, John (CCed) would review those, clean the patches up, >> upstream and integrate then into our u-boot branches so we can have >> them for our LEB builds as well. > > Rowboat also has a decent Fastboot support in u-boot for OMAP3 > http://gitorious.org/rowboat/u-boot-omap3 > Not all the Fastboot commands are supported though > http://wiki.tiprocessors.com/index.php/TI-Android-GingerBread-2.3-DevKit-1.0_UserGuide#Fastboot_commands Hi Amit, Zach, and Alexander, Thanks for your sharing about u-boot + Android 'fastboot' protocol/commands support. At least, patched u-boot works out of box on TI OMAP platforms. Can we define the basic boot loader requirements of Linaro Evaluation Build (LEB) for Android at present? I think it would be essential for validation and Android platform verification purpose. My idea is that we require abstract 'bootloader' component in Android device/linaro/common, and (patched) 'u-boot' would be the provider of 'bootloader' component in device/linaro/Linaro-Evaluation-Build-Hardware. Also, supporting firmware upgrade through 'fastboot' protocol is the recommend feature for LEB boot loader. Does it sound reasonable? Thanks, -jserv ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Alexander Sack wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang wrote: > On 18 April 2011 14:40, wrote: >> From: Patrik Ryd >> >> In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). >> --- >> tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > hi Patrik, > > Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common > LEB? > > I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel > image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might > migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations > such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk? >>> >>> I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader >>> at LDS in budapest. >>> >>> IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding >>> fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead >>> of lk? >> >> That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot >> about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already? > > Yes, I was told that someone (TI?) had a public tree with it. If all > goes well, John (CCed) would review those, clean the patches up, > upstream and integrate then into our u-boot branches so we can have > them for our LEB builds as well. > Rowboat also has a decent Fastboot support in u-boot for OMAP3 http://gitorious.org/rowboat/u-boot-omap3 Not all the Fastboot commands are supported though http://wiki.tiprocessors.com/index.php/TI-Android-GingerBread-2.3-DevKit-1.0_UserGuide#Fastboot_commands Regards, Amit Pundir > -- > > - Alexander > > ___ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
Thanks for the links Zach. On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > John, > > I pulled the tree from: > > source: git://gitorious.org/pandaboard/u-boot.git > branch: origin/omap4_panda_es2.0 > board config: omap4430panda_config > > (referenced http://omappedia.org/wiki/OMAP_Pandroid_Main#Getting_Started) > > -Zach > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Alexander Sack wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang wrote: >> On 18 April 2011 14:40, wrote: >>> From: Patrik Ryd >>> >>> In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). >>> --- >>> tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- >>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> hi Patrik, >> >> Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common >> LEB? >> >> I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel >> image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might >> migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations >> such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. > > I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), > but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since > it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was > there a specific reason to move to lk? I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader at LDS in budapest. IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead of lk? >>> >>> That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot >>> about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already? >> >> Yes, I was told that someone (TI?) had a public tree with it. If all >> goes well, John (CCed) would review those, clean the patches up, >> upstream and integrate then into our u-boot branches so we can have >> them for our LEB builds as well. >> >> -- >> >> - Alexander >> > ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
John, I pulled the tree from: source: git://gitorious.org/pandaboard/u-boot.git branch: origin/omap4_panda_es2.0 board config: omap4430panda_config (referenced http://omappedia.org/wiki/OMAP_Pandroid_Main#Getting_Started) -Zach On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Alexander Sack wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang wrote: > On 18 April 2011 14:40, wrote: >> From: Patrik Ryd >> >> In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). >> --- >> tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > hi Patrik, > > Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common > LEB? > > I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel > image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might > migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations > such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk? >>> >>> I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader >>> at LDS in budapest. >>> >>> IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding >>> fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead >>> of lk? >> >> That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot >> about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already? > > Yes, I was told that someone (TI?) had a public tree with it. If all > goes well, John (CCed) would review those, clean the patches up, > upstream and integrate then into our u-boot branches so we can have > them for our LEB builds as well. > > -- > > - Alexander > ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang wrote: On 18 April 2011 14:40, wrote: > From: Patrik Ryd > > In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). > --- > tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) hi Patrik, Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB? I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. >>> >>> I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), >>> but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since >>> it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was >>> there a specific reason to move to lk? >> >> I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader >> at LDS in budapest. >> >> IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding >> fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead >> of lk? > > That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot > about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already? Yes, I was told that someone (TI?) had a public tree with it. If all goes well, John (CCed) would review those, clean the patches up, upstream and integrate then into our u-boot branches so we can have them for our LEB builds as well. -- - Alexander ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang wrote: >>> On 18 April 2011 14:40, wrote: From: Patrik Ryd In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). --- tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> hi Patrik, >>> >>> Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB? >>> >>> I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel >>> image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might >>> migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations >>> such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. >> >> I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), >> but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since >> it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was >> there a specific reason to move to lk? > > I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader > at LDS in budapest. > > IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding > fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead > of lk? That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already? > > > -- > > - Alexander > ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
On 18 April 2011 21:01, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang wrote: >> On 18 April 2011 14:40, wrote: >>> From: Patrik Ryd >>> In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). >> hi Patrik, >> Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB? >> >> I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel >> image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might >> migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations >> such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. > > I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), > but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since > it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was > there a specific reason to move to lk? hi Zach, In my opinion, if we can follow the protocol of 'fastboot' in _any_ bootloader, we can ensure the consistent approach to deploy firmware both in LEB and Android products. u-boot is a great boot loader, but it lacks of usable 'fastboot' protocol support. I would regard it as the present working implementation instead of de facto standard in LEB for Android. Thanks, -jserv ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang wrote: >> On 18 April 2011 14:40, wrote: >>> From: Patrik Ryd >>> >>> In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). >>> --- >>> tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- >>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> hi Patrik, >> >> Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB? >> >> I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel >> image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might >> migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations >> such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. > > I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), > but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since > it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was > there a specific reason to move to lk? I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader at LDS in budapest. IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead of lk? -- - Alexander ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang wrote: > On 18 April 2011 14:40, wrote: >> From: Patrik Ryd >> >> In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). >> --- >> tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > hi Patrik, > > Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB? > > I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel > image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might > migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations > such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk? > > Thanks, > -jserv > >> diff --git a/tasks/kernel.mk b/tasks/kernel.mk >> index a016d6e..f0ebb93 100644 >> --- a/tasks/kernel.mk >> +++ b/tasks/kernel.mk >> @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ android_kernel: >> make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) defconfig >> $(KERNEL_CONFIG) &&\ >> make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) uImage >> >> -$(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel: android_kernel >> - ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel >> \ No newline at end of file >> +$(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage: android_kernel >> + ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage >> \ No newline at end of file >> -- >> 1.7.1 > > ___ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Re: [Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
On 18 April 2011 14:40, wrote: > From: Patrik Ryd > > In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). > --- > tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) hi Patrik, Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB? I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform. Thanks, -jserv > diff --git a/tasks/kernel.mk b/tasks/kernel.mk > index a016d6e..f0ebb93 100644 > --- a/tasks/kernel.mk > +++ b/tasks/kernel.mk > @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ android_kernel: > make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) defconfig > $(KERNEL_CONFIG) &&\ > make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) uImage > > -$(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel: android_kernel > - ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel > \ No newline at end of file > +$(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage: android_kernel > + ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage > \ No newline at end of file > -- > 1.7.1 ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
[Android: device/linaro/common] Rename the kernel to uImage for Linaro Android build
From: Patrik Ryd In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). --- tasks/kernel.mk |4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/tasks/kernel.mk b/tasks/kernel.mk index a016d6e..f0ebb93 100644 --- a/tasks/kernel.mk +++ b/tasks/kernel.mk @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ android_kernel: make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) defconfig $(KERNEL_CONFIG) &&\ make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) uImage -$(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel: android_kernel - ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel \ No newline at end of file +$(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage: android_kernel + ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage \ No newline at end of file -- 1.7.1 ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
