On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 02:11:04AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set that
> makes it simpler for the different distros to support ARM systems using
> u-boot. I have based a lot of my thoughts on how calxeda ship their
> sys
Hi Stephen,
> Could you expand upon what "handles booting from extX directly" means?
> Upstream U-Boot has supported ext2/3 for as long as I've been involved
> with it (which admittedly isn't that long), and ext4 support was added
> recently. This allows U-Boot commands "extload" or "load" to acce
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 04:07:08PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 22:35:08 -0600
> Stephen Warren wrote:
>
> > On 08/09/2013 05:00 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > On 08/09/2013 04:49 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > >> Dear Stephen Warren,
> > >>
> > >> In message <52056b16.7050..
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 22:35:08 -0600
Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 05:00 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 08/09/2013 04:49 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> Dear Stephen Warren,
> >>
> >> In message <52056b16.7050...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There's also the possibility of chain-lo
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 16:20:06 -0600
Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/03/2013 01:11 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set
> > that makes it simpler for the different distros to support ARM
> > systems using u-boot. I have based
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:48:24 +0200
Dirk Müller wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> > right or wrong we want things to be simple for the user and to
> > largely look like a linux system on x86 would. The user and distro
> > should never need to worry about memory locations
> >
> > so this would mean similar p
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:11:38PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> Why should the boot process take a minute or more when it could be
> done in a few seconds instead?
It takes your x86 kit a minute to load grub? Hyperbole doesn't
help advance technical discussions. Chaining another bootloader
i
Dear Stephen Warren,
In message <5205748d.7060...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> > It appears boot time and increased complexity are no concern to you?
>
> I don't think this is any different than a BIOS booting grub on x86.
Probably not. But do we really have to chose the worst possible
example
On 08/09/2013 05:00 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 04:49 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Stephen Warren,
>>
>> In message <52056b16.7050...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>>>
>>> There's also the possibility of chain-loading e.g. Grub from U-Boot,
>>> which I think would satisfy at least som
On 08/09/2013 04:49 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Stephen Warren,
>
> In message <52056b16.7050...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>>
>> There's also the possibility of chain-loading e.g. Grub from U-Boot,
>> which I think would satisfy at least some of your desires, although
>> there would still be a
Dear Stephen Warren,
In message <52056b16.7050...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> There's also the possibility of chain-loading e.g. Grub from U-Boot,
> which I think would satisfy at least some of your desires, although
> there would still be a need for U-Boot's bootcmd to know to modified to
> be
On 08/03/2013 01:11 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set that
> makes it simpler for the different distros to support ARM systems using
> u-boot. I have based a lot of my thoughts on how calxeda ship their
> systems configured as
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:01:12PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 12:48 PM, Dirk M?ller wrote:
> ...
> > Therefore, the openSUSE on ARM team has a locally patched version of
> > u-boot that handles booting from extX directly, because we did not
> > like to use FAT or anything similar
On 08/08/2013 12:48 PM, Dirk Müller wrote:
...
> Therefore, the openSUSE on ARM team has a locally patched version of
> u-boot that handles booting from extX directly, because we did not
> like to use FAT or anything similar for /boot, and didn't see the need
> for adding a special /load (or simila
Hi Dennis,
> right or wrong we want things to be simple for the user and to largely
> look like a linux system on x86 would. The user and distro should never
> need to worry about memory locations
>
> so this would mean similar partitioning. i.e. /boot on ext4 root and
> swap on lvm or as raw par
Dear Stephen Warren,
In message <520021e4.4070...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote:
>
> Pluggable protocol modules a la UEFI would solve that;-)
Load UEFI as payload from U-Boot instead of Linux, and let UEFI do the
rest of the work?
runs and hides ;-)
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software E
On 08/05/2013 03:08 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 22:43:39 +0200
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
>> Dear Dennis,
>>
>> In message <20130805145059.14c35...@adria.ausil.us> you wrote:
>>>
>>> right, but at the least it needs to be ext4 not all boards today
>>> read ext4
Hi Wolfgang,
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 22:43:39 +0200
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Dennis,
>
> In message <20130805145059.14c35...@adria.ausil.us> you wrote:
> >
> > right, but at the least it needs to be ext4 not all boards today
> > read ext4, btrfs may be something down the road also. u-boot doesnt
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 03:09:55PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 03:00 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:49:58PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 08/05/2013 02:43 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: ...
> >>> Please look into Tom's proposal to got the SPL / Falcon mode
> >>
On 08/05/2013 03:00 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:49:58PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 08/05/2013 02:43 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: ...
>>> Please look into Tom's proposal to got the SPL / Falcon mode
>>> way. I fully agre with him there.
>>
>> From my reading of doc/README.f
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 03:54:03PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:25:45 -0400
> Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 03:11:20PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:01:32 -0400
> > > Tom Rini wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 02:11:0
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:49:58PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 02:43 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> ...
> > Please look into Tom's proposal to got the SPL / Falcon mode way. I
> > fully agre with him there.
>
> From my reading of doc/README.falcon, in order to use it, you still must
>
On 08/05/2013 02:26 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:48:25 -0600
> Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> On 08/05/2013 12:39 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> ...
>>> Note that I'm also in the process of pushing a project to github
>>> that creates a few boot.scr that fit into this model. I've
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:25:45 -0400
Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 03:11:20PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:01:32 -0400
> > Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 02:11:04AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > bootz and raw initrd support.
On 08/05/2013 02:43 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
...
> Please look into Tom's proposal to got the SPL / Falcon mode way. I
> fully agre with him there.
>From my reading of doc/README.falcon, in order to use it, you still must
set everything up in order to do a full non-falcon boot, and then simply
sav
On 08/05/2013 02:11 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:01:32 -0400
> Tom Rini wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 02:11:04AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set
>>> that makes it simpler for the differ
Dear Dennis,
In message <20130805145059.14c35...@adria.ausil.us> you wrote:
>
> right, but at the least it needs to be ext4 not all boards today read
> ext4, btrfs may be something down the road also. u-boot doesnt need to
> care too much. it just needs to look in / and /boot
Where exactly do yo
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:48:25 -0600
Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 12:39 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> ...
> > Note that I'm also in the process of pushing a project to github
> > that creates a few boot.scr that fit into this model. I've written
> > the code, and hope to have IP approval to
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 03:11:20PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:01:32 -0400
> Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 02:11:04AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
[snip]
> > > bootz and raw initrd support. not having to wrap kernels and initrds
> > > really is a must. raw
On 08/05/2013 01:50 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:39:03 -0600 Stephen Warren
> wrote:
>> On 08/03/2013 01:11 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>> I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set
>>> that makes it simpler for the different distros to support ARM
>>> s
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:50:59PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:39:03 -0600
> Stephen Warren wrote:
>
> > On 08/03/2013 01:11 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
[snip]
> > > when it comes to memory addressing a distro and user shouldn't need
> > > to know anything. Ideally u-boot
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:01:32 -0400
Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 02:11:04AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set
> > that makes it simpler for the different distros to support ARM
> > systems using u-boot.
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:39:03 -0600
Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/03/2013 01:11 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set
> > that makes it simpler for the different distros to support ARM
> > systems using u-boot. I have based
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 02:11:04AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set that
> makes it simpler for the different distros to support ARM systems using
> u-boot. I have based a lot of my thoughts on how calxeda ship their
> sys
On 08/05/2013 12:39 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
...
> Note that I'm also in the process of pushing a project to github that
> creates a few boot.scr that fit into this model. I've written the code,
> and hope to have IP approval to upload it very soon. Aside from the
> example above, it also supports
On 08/03/2013 01:11 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set that
> makes it simpler for the different distros to support ARM systems using
> u-boot. I have based a lot of my thoughts on how calxeda ship their
> systems configured as
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 11:08:57AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 3 August 2013 08:11, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > when it comes to memory addressing a distro and user shouldn't need to
> > know anything. Ideally u-boot will auto allocate addresses based on the
> > size of loaded objects. starting
Hi Wolfgang,
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 21:48:00 +0200
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Dennis Gilmore,
>
> In message <20130803021104.1feca...@adria.ausil.us> you wrote:
> >
> > I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set
> > that makes it simpler for the different distros to support
Dear Dennis Gilmore,
In message <20130803021104.1feca...@adria.ausil.us> you wrote:
>
> I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set that
> makes it simpler for the different distros to support ARM systems using
> u-boot. I have based a lot of my thoughts on how calxeda ship t
On 3 August 2013 08:11, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> when it comes to memory addressing a distro and user shouldn't need to
> know anything. Ideally u-boot will auto allocate addresses based on the
> size of loaded objects. starting with a base address internal to u-boot
> you load a kernel, when loadi
Hi all,
I wanted to start a discussion on defining a unified feature set that
makes it simpler for the different distros to support ARM systems using
u-boot. I have based a lot of my thoughts on how calxeda ship their
systems configured as it works fairly well, recently i sent in a patch
implement
41 matches
Mail list logo
