I have just tried enabling I2C on a Sequoia board (kernel is DENX 2.6.26) and
doing that appears to corrupt the u-boot / kernel communications.
Prior to turning on I2C, I see the ethernet mac and kernel command line
correctly passed, but once I turn on I2C, the ethernet mac becomes 0 and the
kerne
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 16:55 -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> I have just tried enabling I2C on a Sequoia board (kernel is DENX 2.6.26) and
> doing that appears to corrupt the u-boot / kernel communications.
>
> Prior to turning on I2C, I see the ethernet mac and kernel command line
> correctly pass
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:44:23 -0400
"Josh Boyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's all output from the wrapper, not the kernel. And the kernel
> config doesn't make a difference at all to the wrapper. I wonder if
> there is some weird size issue going on there or if whatever U-Boot
> version yo
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> > That's all output from the wrapper, not the kernel. And the kernel
> > config doesn't make a difference at all to the wrapper. I wonder if
> > there is some weird size issue going on there or if whatever U-Boot
> > version you are using is doi
Stefan Roese wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
That's all output from the wrapper, not the kernel. And the kernel
config doesn't make a difference at all to the wrapper. I wonder if
there is some weird size issue going on there or if whatever U-Boot
version you are using
Valentine Barshak wrote:
>
> Stefan Roese wrote:
>> On Thursday 21 August 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
That's all output from the wrapper, not the kernel. And the kernel
config doesn't make a difference at all to the wrapper. I wonder if
there is some weird size issue going on ther
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> > It seems that your bootwrapper is somehow not copying the correct MAC
> > address to the device-tree. Not sure what's going wrong here. We usually
> > don't use the bootwrapper but boot the uImage directly from U-Boot on all
> > 4xx systems.
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> Your diagnosis is correct! I changed the define from 8<<20 to 8<<21 and it
> now boots. Previously the parameters were at 7ffe70, and this change moved
> them to fffe70.
Good.
> I would like to switch over to using a uImage rather than the
>
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> I would like to switch over to using a uImage rather than the cuboot.uImage.
Can you actually boot a plain uImage from U-Boot?
I've just gave it a try. While arch/powerpc/boot/cuImage.sequoia boots fine,
after `make uImage', I get arch/powerpc/boot/u
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> > I would like to switch over to using a uImage rather than the
> > cuboot.uImage.
>
> Can you actually boot a plain uImage from U-Boot?
Sure. We did this all the time in arch/ppc. Now in arch/pow
Dear Geert,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Can you actually boot a plain uImage from U-Boot?
yes, of course you can (you will need a device tree, too).
> I've just gave it a try. While arch/powerpc/boot/cuImage.sequoia boots fine,
> after `make uImage', I get arch/powerpc/boot/uI
Dear Valentine Barshak,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> U-boot thinks that all memory above the first 8MB is out of reach for
> the kernel and puts kernel bootargs and boardinfo structure below 8MB as
> close as possible to this limit. Including the i2c driver into the
> kernel i
12 matches
Mail list logo
