On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
>>> >> + cat > ${TMP_DIR}/boot.cmd << BOOTCMD
>>> >> +setenv bootcmd 'fatload mmc 0:1 0x9000 uImage; fatload mmc 0:1
>>> >> 0x9080 uInitrd; bootm 0x9000 0x9080'
>>> >
>>> >
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> Note that there's still the mmc 0:1 which means first partition and
>> wont work with the other change we're discussing
>
> Oh. I assumed u-boot does not see our non-fs data partition and our
> boot partition is mmc 0:1. But now I see tha
On 6 October 2010 17:14, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>> I guess someone (mattman?) should sign this off and see if everything
>>> is still fine in qemu.
>>
>> It's more Peter looking after QEMU these d
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> Here what would happen if we use UUID everywhere:
>> lp:~asac/linaro-image-tools/unify-omap-bootcmd
>
> I've just noticed that this should use $INITRD_ADDR as done in bootm
> (not your doing but
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Here what would happen if we use UUID everywhere:
> lp:~asac/linaro-image-tools/unify-omap-bootcmd
I've just noticed that this should use $INITRD_ADDR as done in bootm
(not your doing but mine)
Note that there's still the mmc 0:1 which means first
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Alexander Sack wrote:
> lp:~asac/linaro-image-tools/boot-snippet-cleanup
>
> IMO, not requiring initrd feels something that we would want anyway
> sooner or later. But no strong opinion for this cycle either way.
>
> BTW, do you know why the boot.cmd line for beagle IMAGE_F
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> Re-pushed to same location. I used $MMC2 for root= and $MMC1 for
>> UBOOT_PART= in flash-kernel.conf ... haven't tested.
>>
> Tested it on mx51evk and it works fine.
Thanks for confirm.
p
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Re-pushed to same location. I used $MMC2 for root= and $MMC1 for
> UBOOT_PART= in flash-kernel.conf ... haven't tested.
>
Tested it on mx51evk and it works fine.
--
Regards,
Shawn
___
linaro-dev
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> lp:~asac/linaro-image-tools/unity-omap-bootcmd
sorry for the noise. this was a typo. look at:
lp:~asac/linaro-image-tools/unify-omap-bootcmd
--
- Alexander
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linar
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
>> I think we should use UUID everywhere; in fact, there's a bug about
>> lack of usage of an initrd in the image file case open. Note that you
>> need initrd support for root=UUID=xyz s
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> good catch. will do. i just noticed that we have boot_snippet=UUID=...
>> still ... should we fix that to use the /dev/? or rather go for UUID
>> everywhere?
>
> I think we should use UUID everywhe
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Alexander Sack wrote:
> good catch. will do. i just noticed that we have boot_snippet=UUID=...
> still ... should we fix that to use the /dev/? or rather go for UUID
> everywhere?
I think we should use UUID everywhere; in fact, there's a bug about
lack of usage of an initrd
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>> How about something like
>>> lp:~asac/linaro-image-tools/part-offset-for-non-fs-data-layout instead
>>> of backing out?
>>
>> Thanks; I t
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> How about something like
>> lp:~asac/linaro-image-tools/part-offset-for-non-fs-data-layout instead
>> of backing out?
>
> Thanks; I think that would work; you might want to patch
> root=/dev/mmcb
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Shawn Guo wrote:
> There is a typo at line 403. The " /dev/mmcblk0p2 63 16064 0 83 Linux
> /dev/mmcblk0p1 * 16065 160649 80262c FAT32 LBA
>
> This is actually the issue I ran into when I was working on mx51evk
> support
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Alexander Sack wrote:
> How about something like
> lp:~asac/linaro-image-tools/part-offset-for-non-fs-data-layout instead
> of backing out?
Thanks; I think that would work; you might want to patch
root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 too
Perhaps you could add a comment near MMCOFFSET expl
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Ah sorry about that; I've backed out the change in this branch:
> lp:~lool/linaro-image-tools/back-out-non-fs-data-partition
> would you mind testing it and I'll merge it in mainline if it works as
> expected
>
There is a typo at line 403.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> That means beagle u-boot will always try to load boot.scr from the
>> first partition, which probably makes Non-FS data partition
>> implementation fails on beagle.
>
> Yes; I had backed it out on beag
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Shawn Guo wrote:
> That means beagle u-boot will always try to load boot.scr from the
> first partition, which probably makes Non-FS data partition
> implementation fails on beagle.
Yes; I had backed it out on beagle last week when I realized the same
thing (<20100930102516
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Loïc Minier wrote:
>> I added a non-FS data partition in the
>> bzr version now, and factored your code with the general case.
>
> Hmm I'll have to disable that on OMAP, otherwise u-boot
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Loïc Minier wrote:
>> >> + cat > ${TMP_DIR}/boot.cmd << BOOTCMD
>> >> +setenv bootcmd 'fatload mmc 0:1 0x9000 uImage; fatload mmc 0:1
>> >> 0x9080 uInitrd; bootm 0x9000 0x9080'
>> >
>> > no mmc init?
>> >
>> This is something I'm not very clea
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Loïc Minier wrote:
> I added a non-FS data partition in the
> bzr version now, and factored your code with the general case.
Hmm I'll have to disable that on OMAP, otherwise u-boot wont find the
boot script -- the ROM case was fine (user bu
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Shawn Guo wrote:
> I'm unsure if OMAP ROM will be unhappy if the FAT partition is not at
> the beginning.
According to the docs, OMAP ROM searches for a FAT partition with the
bootable flag turned on. It certainly doesn't care (too much) about
the location of the partitio
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Right. So the practical difference is that won't get this space
> offered as being free in your preferred partition tool ... reducing
> risk that you accidentially wipe u-boot from your SD.
You can also more easily save/replace your bootloader and/or
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> What is the advantage of a non-fs-data partition over just leaving
>> empty space at the beginning of the block device?
>
> That actually marks this space as being in use
Right. So the practical
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> What is the advantage of a non-fs-data partition over just leaving
> empty space at the beginning of the block device?
That actually marks this space as being in use
--
Loïc Minier
___
linaro-dev mailing l
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>> The u-boot.imx really needs to be at offset 1KB on card to make imx51
>>> ROM happy. Even I create the "non-FS data" partitio
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> The u-boot.imx really needs to be at offset 1KB on card to make imx51
>> ROM happy. Even I create the "non-FS data" partition from 0 cylinder
>> with sfdisk, it actually starts from sect
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
>> Could we just use the same partition layout for all images (the imx51
>> one), avoiding the if entirely?
>>
> I'm unsure if OMAP ROM will be unhappy if the FAT partition is not at
> the beginning.
I agree. Also it feels risky to me to change
Thanks for reviewing and helping. I addressed the the comments with
the updated patch, except the following ones.
>> @@ -371,10 +385,17 @@
>>
>> # Create a VFAT or FAT16 partition of 9 cylinders which is about 64M
>> # and a linux partition of the rest
>> + if [ "$DEVIMAGE" = imx51 ]; then
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010, Shawn Guo wrote:
> I made a l-m-c patch to add imx51 support. I need your help to review
> and merge the code.
Thanks!
You probably want to use the board name, mx51evk, not the SoC name,
imx51; this also avoids mixing mx51 (kernel flavor) and imx51 (DEVNAME)
in the scri
Only one comment for now. I'll test the patch.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> I made a l-m-c patch to add imx51 support. I need your help to review
> and merge the code.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Shawn
>
>
> # Begin patch
> === modified file 'linaro-media-create'
> --- linaro-medi
I made a l-m-c patch to add imx51 support. I need your help to review
and merge the code.
--
Regards,
Shawn
# Begin patch
=== modified file 'linaro-media-create'
--- linaro-media-create 2010-09-28 18:53:19 +
+++ linaro-media-create 2010-09-30 00:36:30 +
@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
* beagle
33 matches
Mail list logo
