Re: [U-Boot] U-Boot maintainers: some boards are broken by recent mach-type update
Hi Marek, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:10:08PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: Robert Schwebel r.schwe...@pengutronix.de csb226 xscale/pxa innokom xscale/pxa Drop unless I get fixes from maintainer in a week or request for longer time to fix. (here I have some feeling it's not gonna be fixed) They won't. Both boards are not in my hands any more and long obsolete. So from my side, dropping them is just fine. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 14/17 V4] M28: Add MMC SPL
Hi Marek, On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:44:23AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: board/denx/m28evk/power_init.c | 913 ++ Shouldn't the power library functions go into arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mx28/? They are not m28evk specific and should be re-usable by other MX28 boards. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] u-boot-x86
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 11:42:31AM +1000, Graeme Russ wrote: It sounds like you might be looking at using U-Boot for booting a x86 PC. If this is the case, maybe you should take a look at coreboot (http://www.coreboot.org/) For what it's worth: we have a beginning of x86 support in Barebox (formerly known as U-Boot-v2): http://www.barebox.org It works ontop of the BIOS and can boot into a kernel which is in a raw partition on a BIOS-supported boot device. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] u-boot for freescale iMX27 Baord
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:58:09AM -0800, Fabio Estevam wrote: Please send us the link from where I can download the u-boot v2.0. ( which is having iMx27 board support) You can get it from http://www.pengutronix.de/software/u-boot/v2/download/ or also from git: git clone http://git.denx.de/git/u-boot-v2.git Note also that there is now a separate mailing list for v2: http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/u-boot-v2 Regards, Robert Schwebel -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] mx27 lcd controller
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:05:41PM +0200, Johann Steinbrecher wrote: which patches are required in order to get a lcd support for the imx27 during the boot up? Is this function already supported? Is there a patch that initialized the LCD and DMA controller? u-boot-v2 has initial support for bootloader-splash since today :-) I started a discussion about a possible scenario for flicker-free booting on the linux-embedded list; maybe you want to join the discussion. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3?
Hi Remy, On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:49:31PM +0200, Remy Bohmer wrote: Freescale isnt alone here, so when/if u-boot goes GPLv3, please dont do your own thing in a vacuum. there will be others who would support a GPLv2 split, so we might as well collaborate. u-boot-v2 looks fairly attractive at this point. -mike Well, now Mike brought it up, I think it is time to get the picture complete: What is the standpoint of the u-boot-v2 team on this subject? Seen from our side, we don't plan any license change for u2 over what we have now. Although I must say that I havn't read the recent u-boot flamewar about this topic yet :) rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] board support patch for phyCORE-MPC5200B-tiny
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 12:11:52AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: +#define CONFIG_BOARDINFOPhytec Phycore mpc5200b tiny Too long. Please be terse. The official name of the board is phyCORE-MPC5200B-tiny. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] iMX27 PDK board support
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 11:18:14AM +0200, brice.wal...@ulp.u-strasbg.fr wrote: J've seen that U-Boot V2 supports different MX27 CPU boards. Is U-Boot supported on Freescale i.MX27 PDK board? The tree contains support for the MX27ADS but not for the PDK; however, it is not very well tested because most of the development takes place on the phyCORE-i.MX27 so far. We have support for the MX35-3-Stack, you might want to have a look at that code if you are working into that direction. Patches are welcome, as always. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Kconfig menu layout
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 07:22:31PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote: Dear Jon Smirl, In message 9e4733910904211533s58df5764na715986b36824...@mail.gmail.com you wrote: - for those who look for a board name, we should support this, probably wih an initial selection by the first letter (case insensitive) of the board name. like this: = board name = M = MPC837XERDB You can search for the board name in Kconfig using Ctrl-F and then put in a string This works on the kernel too. Ctrl-F? In which exact envrionment does this work? With make config? make menuconfig ? I see now that Ctrl-F doesn't work everywhere. Try it in 'make xconfig' Searching in 'make menuconfig' works with /, like with every good unix tool. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] Kconfig support
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 01:12:07AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: How can you possibly ever change the API for the flash driver with 201 different flash drivers in the tree without marking something as broken? Well, *if* we wanted to change the API, that would be a reason to get rid of the old legacy flash drivers. But so far no such API change has been necessary. And here and there the old drivers are even necessary due to restrictions of the CFI driver that are not too easy to fix. So what exactly is it you are critizising? That we don't abondon working code just because it is old? Hm... If you consider the current code duplication and ifdef hackery to be an API, then yes, you are right and there is no need to change anything. One of these boards is the Auerswald Innokom, a board Robert once ported. We probably still have it somewhere @Pengutronix, but nobody in the world has any interest in running a top of tree U-Boot on it. Still it is in the tree and by policy it has to be supported for all eternity. Feel free to submit patches to remove it from the tree if you care. Why should I? On the other hand - how much effort was actually spent on keeping this board alive? Obviously not much, because so far nobody com- plained about it. Actually that's the whole idea about having a board in mainline. If you look at the changes that were applied to the related files, it's all stuff that was done 99% automatically with some scripts - and I don't really care if these are applied to 20 boards or to 200. It is not the effort to keep it alive. These old boards, while being there, add the requirement not to be broken by any change in the tree. This makes it impossible to make any fundamental design changes in U-Boot, like what Sascha did in v2. I fail to understand what you are trying to tell us. Re-read the mails, it is all in there. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] Kconfig support
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:29:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: [stupid attempt of a flame war deleted] For the audience which is wondering about what's going on here, I have no idea. The idea behind B-Boot-v2 is: U-Boot itself is a *great* bootloader from the user's poing of view. It is the best thing we have in the open source market place, and it is especially *much* better than all the redboots, grubs whatever. When we started the v2 effort, we saw that U-Boot has a problem with it's inner design. It was great when the U-Boot project started, but it has (successfully) grown over the years, and as with every project that has not been reworked over more than a decade, it is almost impossible to fix design decisions without breaking all the boards out there. Yes, it works with the Linux kernel, but compare the size of the communities. So our intention was and is: 1. Wolfgang has a focus on stability and gradual changes. We respect this political position because it is a *good* one. 2. We need something else four our ARM, PowerPC, Blackfin and x86 projects. The technical features I'm talking about are in the README document. The focus is on a modern design, extensability and testability, not on feature completeness. 3. It was an active decision from our team *not* to fork and call it something else than U-Boot(-v2) when we started. We see that the U-Boot community is strong, it has long term aims and last but not least, it has a *great* bootloader. We talked to Wolfgang before doing so, and Wolfgang's position was in the spirit of go ahead, here is a git tree, and let the community decide. 4. v2 has been designed with much of the technical ideas of modern Linux kernels in mind; most probably v1 would have done the same if it had started 10 years later. So we think our work fits perfectly into the spirit of the U-Boot project. 4. Yes, community splitup is bad. But if one community has overlapping aims which can be worked on under the same roof - why on earth should we not do this? 5. It may happen that the v1 people take features from v2 and bring them into v1 over the time. Great than - v2 would have done it's job then. 6. It may happen that the v2 community grows over the time and more and more boards will be added. Great then - users would have a choice *within* the U-Boot community, up to a gradual change to the new code base. What ever will happen - I don't see *any* reason for whatever Mike is trying to enforce here. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] Kconfig support
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 04:40:04PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: 1. Wolfgang has a focus on stability and gradual changes. We respect this political position because it is a *good* one. This is not quite correct. What I consider important is an evo- lutionary path - this may include bigger changes and reorganizations, but I consider it a bad idea to not provide a reasonable migration path for larger parts of the existing community. An evolutionary path in limited time is not possible when you want to change fundamental design issues. This is our oppinion, feel free to proove us wrong. 3. It was an active decision from our team *not* to fork and call it something else than U-Boot(-v2) when we started. We see that the U-Boot community is strong, it has long term aims and last but not least, it has a *great* bootloader. We talked to Wolfgang before doing so, and Wolfgang's position was in the spirit of go ahead, here is a git tree, and let the community decide. This is actually wrong. When we talked about these things, you had already performed a split, and had a up-and-running implementation behind your (kind of closed) doors. It was me who asked you to make this existing code openly available. Well, how do you think such things are going to happen? By starting with a big vapourware discussion? Come on. Someone has to show some code, and that's what we did. It is all GPL, so it is as much open or closed doors as anything else. What I missed, and what I still consider a big chance that was missed, is any public discussion about such a new design - before the actual work was started, or at least before such irrevocable decisions were made as not to consider any form of an upgrade path. Until now all we hear is whining about the design, while almost nobody has ever looked into the code. Could you elaborate? What would you like to see? What is there that you don't like? Please feel free to send patches if you have other ideas for v2. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] Kconfig support
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 04:59:41PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: What's the summary of features that v2 has that v1 doesnt? http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-v2.git;a=blob;f=README;hb=HEAD rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] Kconfig support
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:56:53AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: We have even Blackfin support in v2, and that for almost all of the time it is actually there. Sure - if you need feature completeness, you'll have to stay with v1. Our aim is a sane design, and I'm still not convinced that this is even possible with v1 any more. unless it's the code that ive been committing to mainline via the blackfin git tree, then it really doesnt matter (and it looks that way) since, as you say, it is not even close to feature parity. You missed the point, please re-read what I've written. If you aim for feature completeness, use v1 and don't care about v2. v2 is for people who care about *design*. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] Kconfig support
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 09:49:38AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: If you aim for feature completeness, use v1 and don't care about v2. v2 is for people who care about *design*. so v2 is good for thinking about things while v1 is good for people who want to do real work. if that's the standpoint, then it looks like v2 is destined to die and ideas should be fitted onto v1. Well, it is Open Source, so you are free to do whatever you want to do. U-Boot-v2 is used here to do real work in our projects. If it isn't what you need, it is perfectly fine if you ignore it. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] Kconfig support
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: U-Boot-v2 is used here to do real work in our projects. If it isn't what you need, it is perfectly fine if you ignore it. my concern isnt really narrow to the Blackfin port. i was using it as a practical example. we've talked about v2 in the past as the answer to many of our problems and so we dont bother doing it in v1. but that approach looks to be wrong as v2 is of little practical importance. instead we should be doing what Jean-Christophe is doing: poaching good ideas until we get to the point where v2 can simply die. If you mean you while saying we, then yes, it may be correct that this is your plan. We don't have any plans to let v2 die. Should we be mindful of the future? But not at the expense of the moment. Be mindful of the living Force, my young Padawan. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] Kconfig support
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:54:41PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: u-boot-v2 is an interesting approach in several aspects, but since it was made publicly visible nearly two years ago it did not collect much of a community around it. Right; part of the reason is it was always something we used to solve our problems, and we didn't do much marketing around it. Nevertheless, it *does* solve our problems very well, and each time we have to work with v1 again it's weaknesses show up again and again. From my (strictly personal) point of view, one show stopper is that there is no migration path - if you want to go u-boot-v2, you have to throw away all what is in mainline. That was one of the design criteria - starting with a clean code base, in order to get rid of all the old ugglyness. And there is a lot of things that are not available in v2. Right; from what we need in our daytime projects, the most important feature which is currently missing is PCI support. There are several others which are surely also important (like i2c) but could be added with very low effort if needed. So it does make perfect sense to me to add features like Kconfig support to mainline. Right; if v2 inspires someone to take the ideas and bring them into v1, it's perfectly fine - in the end, it's one of the reasons we started the whole thing. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] Kconfig support
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 03:18:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: so, does it make sense to look at the feature set that v2 brings to the table and get it into u-boot v1? ive never personally looked at v2, but if it means i need to redo all of my Blackfin core/board code, that doesnt sound very appealing at all ... We have even Blackfin support in v2, and that for almost all of the time it is actually there. Sure - if you need feature completeness, you'll have to stay with v1. Our aim is a sane design, and I'm still not convinced that this is even possible with v1 any more. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Multiple device support -- sorry state :(
Hi Jerry, On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:19:19PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote: k...@koi8.net wrote: OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is fundamentally broken. One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this device is somehow supported. Now it is USB. Each and every USB driver exports the same set of functions, submit_XXX_msg(...) That means there can be one and only one USB device in the system. [snip the badly scorched spot ;-)] USB keyboard is another grand kludge deserving its own chapter... As of now one can only switch to it from command line because USB is not even initialized until do_usb() from cmd_usb.c is called... What if we do NOT have a serial console at all? Dumb question because I have not looked seriously at the v2 fork of u-boot: how does the v2 fork handle this? Better? Since the v2 fork uses (or is close to) the linux driver model, I would expect it to be better. Right, we use something close to the driver model, so no problem with that in v2 land. Other than linux, we have per-device parameters. Example, with a freshly checked out tree: r...@thebe:u-boot-v2$ make sandbox_defconfig r...@thebe:u-boot-v2$ make r...@thebe:u-boot-v2$ ./scripts/ubootenv -s -p 0x1 examples/environment/ env.bin That gets you an u-boot-v2 (user mode u-boot) plus the example environment. Let's start it: r...@thebe:u-boot-v2-denx$ ./uboot -e env.bin add file env.bin() U-Boot 2.0.0-rc8-00084-g97568fd (Apr 8 2009 - 21:54:30) Board: sandbox Malloc space: 0xb761f008 - 0xb7e1f008 (size 8 MB) Open /dev/env0 Function not implemented running /env/bin/init... not found uboot:/ Let's check which devices we have: uboot:/ devinfo devices: |env0 |console0 |mem |eth0 |filesystem: / |filesystem: /dev drivers: console cfi_flash mem ram rom cramfs ramfs devfs hostfile Let's check what parameters are there: uboot:/ devinfo /dev/console0 base : 0x size : 0x driver: console no info available for console0 Parameters: active = ioe So you can have as many devices as you want, plus each device has parameters attached to it, so it's completely object oriented, without any global variable crap. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Multiple device support -- sorry state :(
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:25:16PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote: On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Jerry Van Baren wrote: k...@koi8.net wrote: OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is fundamentally broken. One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this device is somehow supported. Now it is USB. Each and every USB driver exports the same set of functions, submit_XXX_msg(...) That means there can be one and only one USB device in the system. [snip the badly scorched spot ;-)] USB keyboard is another grand kludge deserving its own chapter... As of now one can only switch to it from command line because USB is not even initialized until do_usb() from cmd_usb.c is called... What if we do NOT have a serial console at all? Dumb question because I have not looked seriously at the v2 fork of u-boot: how does the v2 fork handle this? Better? Since the v2 fork uses (or is close to) the linux driver model, I would expect it to be better. Nothing's changed here... And that is _NOT_ just USB, it is everywhere -- I2C, SPI, etc. It is stiff, inflexible, everything written in stone and that stone is permanently set in concrete. I suppose you didn't look in the right place. We don't even have support for i2c and spi in v2 :-) rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Multiple device support -- sorry state :(
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:18:45PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote: I suppose you didn't look in the right place. We don't even have support for i2c and spi in v2 :-) Ah, that's that forked one! Sorry, my bad... I thought about the new version of a legacy one that just shuffled source files to put device drivers under devices/*... Can you tell me where it lives to clone the repository? I'd rather give up on v1 entirely because it is not going anywhere... git clone git://www.denx.de/git/u-boot-v2 Do you have a separate mailing list for v2? No, just use this one. As long as the traffic keeps low, I suppose there is no need for a separate list. However, it's probably a good idea to have Sascha on Cc: :-) rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] Multiple device support -- sorry state :(
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 02:25:57PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote: OK, thanks. Cloning now :) OK, got a look at it. Looks promising but it is in very early stage yet... I wouldn't say in pre-conception stage, but definitely on a very beginning of the first trimester :) Well, you are free to send patches. We use it mainly for ARM systems which happen to be flash based (NAND, NOR), without PCI. So what was implemented was what we needed. No reason for you not to send us your favourite and fancy new features :-) I have the first prototype of MPC8548E-based big motherboard sitting on my desk right now and it is in full bringup stage. All the hardware is checked, bunch of smoked parts replaced and fixed, all clocks are ticking, CPU fetching etc. I will definitely join V2 development but for now I'll probably make a huge set of horrible hacks over V1 to test everything and get my revision 2 started. Then I will be able to work on U-Boot V2 while my revision 2 is made (schematic rework, re-layout, PCB, missing parts sourcing, assembly etc.) Go ahead, we definitely are looking forward to more community contribution. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] AT91SAM926x Nor Boot
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:35:08AM +0100, Jens Scharsig wrote: I'm start with a port for a new customer board with NOR-flash only. Our customer don't like use AT91Bootstrap. I look at the source, but don't found any initialization code for AT91SAM926x. My question: Are there any plans or patches which support to use u-boot without AT91Bootstrap? or Should I do this by myself? We have ported u-boot-v2 to AT91SAM9263, without at91bootstrap. Look in the v2 git repository. The port isn't very mature, but anyway. Patches are welcome. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [ptxdist] u-boot-v2 rc7
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 03:04:56PM -0600, John Jeffers wrote: In ~/u-boot-v2/board/pcm038/env/config (and in most other boards in v2) the following is found: /+ autoboot_timeout=3 nfsroot=/ptx/work/octopus/rsc/svn/oselas/bsp/phytec/phyCORE-i.MX27/OSELAS.BSP-Phytec-phyCORE-i.MX27-trunk/root bootargs=console=ttymxc0,115200 -/ I believe this causes certain scripting in ptxdist to fail ~ptxdist test setenvcr since it is setting up uboot configuration for Robert S.'s machine. It does not actually hurt u-boot-v2 rc7 since the knowledgeable user will make this go away for his board. The automatic setup scripts in OSELAS.BSPs using this board should do the right thing, the 'test setenv' script will push a well defined environment into the box. Likely the community would be better served if there was a comment as the following: #really make sure this points to the nfs root source. Assuming the BSP was at the user home. ~ nfsroot=/OSELAS.BSP-Phytec-phyCORE-8/projectroot It may be useful to fix this as a question to the user.// Yes, good idea, please send a proper patch that fixes all of these issues. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] make make quiet
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:20:57PM +0100, kenneth johansson wrote: Only print out the target name during make. For old style set V=1 Signed-off-by: kenneth johansson kenn...@southpole.se Sidenote: u-boot-v2 uses the standard Linux build system and has quiet operation as the default case. rsc -- 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- | ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] AT91SAM9263-pm9263-support
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 06:24:43PM +0200, Ilko Iliev wrote: This patch adds support for the PM9263 board of Ronetix GmbH (www.ronetix.at) Please note that u-boot-v2 has also a port for the PM9263: http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-v2.git;a=summary Marc, you may also have some comments about the posted patches. rsc -- Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 Hannoversche Str. 2, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] U-Boot Versioning
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 09:37:04AM +0200, Luigi 'Comio' Mantellini wrote: good idea... but I would like to clarify that we (italians) don't eat Spaghetti with Bolognese but we prefer to use Tagliatelle or Tortellini or Ravioli pasta, and the Sugo Bolognese's ingredients are: - Onion - Olive Oil (Extra-virgin!) - Celery - Carrot - Wine - (little bit) milk (if you want) - minced meet (beef) - (litte bit) lard or bacon (if you want) - tomato Well, that surely qualifies for the releases for the next couple of years. - a lot of time Uuuh, that's not so easy. Code incredients tend to rot quickly when not being served freshly from a rcs repository. Using the Sugo alla Bolognese we can give a name for each file of the toolchain... So it might be an innovative model, thanks, we'll reconsider! 8-) rsc -- Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 Hannoversche Str. 2, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] U-Boot Versioning
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 01:12:31AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Or use colors. The next release will then be the Yellow Submarine :) We've also considered to name toolchain releases after food. So for example if gcc-4.3.2 would be spagetti, binutils-2.18 would be tomatos, glibc-2.8 would be mincemeat; so a release from these components could be called the spagetty bolognese release, which would definitely be better than gcc-4.3.2-glibc-2.8-kernel-2.6.26-arm-v4t-linux-gnueabi. The problem comes up if you upgrade binutils to the 2.19 pickled herring revision. The resulting toolchain could have some compatiblity issues with our users then :) rsc -- Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 Hannoversche Str. 2, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] u-boot for imx27 Board
Hi, On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 09:43:53PM +0530, Lejin K Joy wrote: Could you kindly suggest me the arm cross compiler's link /name using which you have compiled the u-boot. I am using obsolete-gcc-3.3.2.tar.bz2 compiler. We usually build the MX27 stuff with a generic arm-v4 cross toolchain, built with OSELAS.Toolchain-1.1.1. You can compile such a toolchain yourself easily with ptxdist, look here for the details: http://www.pengutronix.de/oselas/toolchain/index_en.html rsc -- Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 Hannoversche Str. 2, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
