On 27 Mar 2013 01:31, "Graeme Russ" wrote:
>
> Hi Brendan,
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > On 03/26/2013 06:09 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
> >>
> >> I've had a quick glance at the U-Boot source and I think the newer
> >> 'FIT' image may be a better path to follow. In c
On 27 Mar 2013 03:24, "Jon" wrote:
>
>
> I feel we gain the greatness of unified kernel but we make separate
images that handle the u-boot quirks. We push down the stack so to speak.
The only diff of each image being load addr's.
>
> The exynos5 kernel requires FIT images, so an extra dimension of
On 27 Mar 2013 03:38, "Nicolas Pitre" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>
> > We could create a number of uboot headers. Then after loading the
default
> > uImage, load a separate uboot header overwriting the first 64 bytes of
RAM.
>
> Please don't engage in those senseless g
On 27 Mar 2013 05:12, "Brendan Conoboy" wrote:
>
> On 03/26/2013 08:38 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>
>> If uImage is a problem, just don't use it, period. Problem solved. All
>> the targets supported by the unified kernel are recent enough to have
>> bootz support in their U-Boot source. Please us
Wed Mar 27 08:05:01 EDT 2013
f20 : arm vs PA
Same |Newer |Older |Local | Remote |
Missing |
--
12404 |0 | 463 |2 |
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Graeme Russ wrote:
> Hi Nicolas
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Graeme Russ wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Brendan,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> >> > On 03/26/2013 06:09 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
>
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/26/2013 08:38 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > If uImage is a problem, just don't use it, period. Problem solved. All
> > the targets supported by the unified kernel are recent enough to have
> > bootz support in their U-Boot source. Please use tha
Hi Nico, Graeme,
On 03/27/2013 11:01 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Graeme Russ wrote:
>> Using FIT you should be able to bundle a unified uImage, initramfs and
>> FDT. You can then edit the FDT within U-Boot for device specific
>> parameters (like load address).
>
> IMHO this i
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2013 03:24, "Jon" wrote:
> > The problem statement is different u-boot are different, and we cannot
> > have unified images.
>
> Yes we can, we just need a tool to adjust the uboot bit like Han's tool for
> the A1x devices. Its less ugly tha
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Jon Masters wrote:
> Prior to Brendan sending that mail last night, we had an internal RH
> meeting wherein this topic came up (and precipitated the email). I
> explained already in that and will repeat here that the ARM kernel is
> already relocatable. It has only two major r
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>> On 27 Mar 2013 03:24, "Jon" wrote:
>> > The problem statement is different u-boot are different, and we cannot
>> > have unified images.
>>
>> Yes we can, we just need a tool to adjust the uboo
On 03/27/2013 11:26 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Jon Masters wrote:
>
>> Prior to Brendan sending that mail last night, we had an internal RH
>> meeting wherein this topic came up (and precipitated the email). I
>> explained already in that and will repeat here that the ARM kern
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >
> >> On 27 Mar 2013 03:24, "Jon" wrote:
> >> > The problem statement is different u-boot are different, and we cannot
> >> > have unified images.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/27/2013 11:26 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Jon Masters wrote:
> >
> >> Prior to Brendan sending that mail last night, we had an internal RH
> >> meeting wherein this topic came up (and precipitated the email). I
> >> explained a
Good day all,
Please join us today (Wednesday, March 27th) at 4PM EDT (20:00 UTC)
for the Fedora ARM weekly status meeting in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode.
On the agenda so far..
0) Status of ACTION items from our previous meeting
1) Problem packages
2) F19: uImage load addresses with unified
I won't be in attendance as I have a personal event.
> 0) Status of ACTION items from our previous meeting
>
> 1) Problem packages
Currently just tog-pegasus and some of the ruby packages.
I spent some time Sun/Mon/Tues and went through the outstanding builds
and pushed new builds for ones that
Last kernel I could boot correctly under qemu is 3.7.6-102.fc17.armv7l.
When I try 3.7.9-101.fc17.armv7l, I get this under qemu-1.4.0 :
[ OK ] Started /etc/rc.d/rc.local Compatibility.
Starting Wait for Plymouth Boot Screen to Quit...
Starting Terminate Plymouth Boot Screen..
Known issue. Use 3.8.3 and higher with qemu 1.4+. There's a known issue
with qemu 1.3 with newer kernels (>3.7).
Peter
On 27 Mar 2013 17:27, "Alex Villacís Lasso"
wrote:
>
> Last kernel I could boot correctly under qemu is 3.7.6-102.fc17.armv7l.
>
> When I try 3.7.9-101.fc17.armv7l, I get this u
>
> Known issue. Use 3.8.3 and higher with qemu 1.4+. There's a known
> issue with qemu 1.3 with newer kernels (>3.7).
You'll also need to adjust the boot script to include the DTB, eg:
qemu-system-arm -machine vexpress-a9 -m 1024 -nographic -net nic -net user \
-append "console=ttyAMA0,1152
Thanks to those that were able to join for the status meeting today, for those
unable the minutes
are posted below:
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-03-27/fedora-meeting-1.2013-03-27-20.00.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/20
20 matches
Mail list logo
