Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-05-26 Thread Stefan Roese
On Monday 06 April 2009 11:38:59 Prafulla Wadaskar wrote: > Bin_dep.sh provides a framework inside u-boot, > whether to use it or not is sole decision of board/processor specific code. > So why not include it :-) Since I'm currently working with a Kirkwood platform, I would like to "reactivate" t

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 06 April 2009 15:49:43 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message Scott Wood wrote: > > > There are tons of standards for image formats, and even more commonly > > > used formats I would not dare to call standard; but this processor > > > has to invent yet another one? > > > > The same could be sa

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Scott Wood, In message <20090406193049.gb4...@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> you wrote: > > > There are tons of standards for image formats, and even more commonly > > used formats I would not dare to call standard; but this processor > > has to invent yet another one? > > The same could be s

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Scott Wood
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:24:39AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Ronen Shitrit, > > In message <309002c0da137042828828fc53d7a9347e13537...@il-mb01.marvell.com> > you wrote: > > > > I'm not sure we are on the same page here, the Kirkwood has an > > internal bootROM which can only boot an imag

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Prafulla Wadaskar, In message <73173d32e9439e4abb5151606c3e19e250840...@sc-vexch1.marvell.com> you wrote: > > > ...which seems to be an acceptable (to both sides) compromise to me. > I understood from the discussion so far that- > 1. There are several cases where u-boot.bin does not help al

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 06 April 2009 06:28:33 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > ...which seems to be an acceptable (to both sides) compromise to me. > > > > minus support for embedding the environment into the image ... i have a > > patch that adds an option to tools/envcrc to export

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Mike Frysinger, In message <200904060533.47911.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote: > > > ...which seems to be an acceptable (to both sides) compromise to me. > > minus support for embedding the environment into the image ... i have a patch > that adds an option to tools/envcrc to export the enviro

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 06 April 2009 05:38:59 Prafulla Wadaskar wrote: > As a user ideally I expect u-boot.bin generated by u-boot make > should go onto flash and board should work. i disagree. u-boot.bin should be the exact flat binary of converting from the u-boot ELF file using objdump. > But if this doe

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Prafulla Wadaskar
> -Original Message- > From: Detlev Zundel [mailto:d...@denx.de] > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 3:10 PM > To: Wolfgang Denk > Cc: Prafulla Wadaskar; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Ronen Shitrit > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support > > Hi, > > > D

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Detlev Zundel
Hi, > Dear Prafulla Wadaskar, > > In message <1238759359-6544-2-git-send-email-prafu...@marvell.com> you wrote: >> From: prafulla_wadaskar >> >> In some cases the u-boot.bin need to be processed further >> to create bootable u-boot binary from boot device >> This processing may be cpu,soc and/or

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Prafulla Wadaskar
> -Original Message- > From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de > [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Denk > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 2:46 PM > To: Mike Frysinger > Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Ronen Shitrit > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATC

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 06 April 2009 05:16:02 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > in message Mike wrote: > > the Blackfin processor too has a custom format (LDR) for booting code. > > it's akin to the PHDRs in ELF, plus some additional flag bits to control > > behavior. but in our world, i wrote external utilities to manag

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Mike, in message <200904060503.18864.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote: > > the Blackfin processor too has a custom format (LDR) for booting code. it's > akin to the PHDRs in ELF, plus some additional flag bits to control behavior. > > but in our world, i wrote external utilities to manage EL

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Ronen Shitrit, In message <309002c0da137042828828fc53d7a9347e13538...@il-mb01.marvell.com> you wrote: > > Dear Ronen Shitrit, > > In message <309002c0da137042828828fc53d7a9347e13537...@il-mb01.marvell.com>= > you wrote: > > > > I'm not sure we are on the same page here, the Kirkwood has a

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 06 April 2009 04:24:39 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message Ronen Shitrit wrote: > > I'm not sure we are on the same page here, the Kirkwood has an > > internal bootROM which can only boot an image if this image is > > wrapped by a specific header. > > What a stupid (read: broken) hardware d

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Ronen Shitrit
Dear Ronen Shitrit, In message <309002c0da137042828828fc53d7a9347e13537...@il-mb01.marvell.com> you wrote: > > I'm not sure we are on the same page here, the Kirkwood has an > internal bootROM which can only boot an image if this image is > wrapped by a specific header. There are tons of stan

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Ronen Shitrit, In message <309002c0da137042828828fc53d7a9347e13537...@il-mb01.marvell.com> you wrote: > > I'm not sure we are on the same page here, the Kirkwood has an > internal bootROM which can only boot an image if this image is > wrapped by a specific header. What a stupid (read: brok

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Ronen Shitrit
the U-Boot? Thanks for your help Ronen Shitrit -Original Message- From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:05 AM To: Prafulla Wadaskar Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Ronen Shitrit Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support Dear Prafulla Wadaskar, In me

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Prafulla Wadaskar, In message <73173d32e9439e4abb5151606c3e19e250840...@sc-vexch1.marvell.com> you wrote: > > > I don't see use cases for this. This should probably remain > > out of tree. > > Relevant use case will be Marvell Kirkwood SOC, this patch will be dependen > cy for the same I

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-06 Thread Prafulla Wadaskar
> -Original Message- > From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:w...@denx.de] > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 11:25 PM > To: Prafulla Wadaskar > Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Ronen Shitrit > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support > > Dear Prafulla Wadaskar, > >

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-03 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Prafulla Wadaskar, In message <1238759359-6544-2-git-send-email-prafu...@marvell.com> you wrote: > From: prafulla_wadaskar > > In some cases the u-boot.bin need to be processed further > to create bootable u-boot binary from boot device > This processing may be cpu,soc and/or board spcific

[U-Boot] [PATCH] bin_dep.sh Support

2009-04-02 Thread Prafulla Wadaskar
From: prafulla_wadaskar In some cases the u-boot.bin need to be processed further to create bootable u-boot binary from boot device This processing may be cpu,soc and/or board spcific bin_dep.sh provides a mechanism to execute bin_dep.sh if present in above platform specific folders Signed-off-b