Re: [U-Boot-Users] intended behavior of bootm

2008-04-23 Thread Matthias Fuchs
Hi Wolfgang, thanks for your reply. That's the kind of thing I wanted to hear. Now I will start playing around ;-) Matthias On Tuesday 22 April 2008 22:49, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > > > Now I have to find a (simple) solution to solve my problem: > > >

Re: [U-Boot-Users] intended behavior of bootm

2008-04-22 Thread Wolfgang Denk
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > Now I have to find a (simple) solution to solve my problem: > > Typically the 405 board boots from onboard flash. Because of historic > reason there is a kernel and a ramdisk image (not a multi image and nothing > that is aware of any new image format

Re: [U-Boot-Users] intended behavior of bootm

2008-04-22 Thread Matthias Fuchs
Thanks for Jerry's and your reply. I see that my expectation was incorrect and I didn't take the words 'point of no return' that serious. Now I have to find a (simple) solution to solve my problem: Typically the 405 board boots from onboard flash. Because of historic reason there is a kernel and

Re: [U-Boot-Users] intended behavior of bootm

2008-04-21 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Matthias, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > I am wondering if bootm behaves correctly on CRC errors in kernel and/or > ramdisk images. > This is what I observed: Most has already been said in previous replies, so here just a summary of the situation: > 3) Same loading as above

Re: [U-Boot-Users] intended behavior of bootm

2008-04-21 Thread Jerry Van Baren
Matthias Fuchs wrote: > Hi Jerry, > > On Monday 21 April 2008 17:16, Jerry Van Baren wrote: >> Matthias Fuchs wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> after going through the boom code I found out, that >>> setting the 'autostart' variable to 'no' brings me a little closer >>> to what I want. But finally I end up >

Re: [U-Boot-Users] intended behavior of bootm

2008-04-21 Thread Matthias Fuchs
Hi Jerry, On Monday 21 April 2008 17:16, Jerry Van Baren wrote: > Matthias Fuchs wrote: > > Hi, > > > > after going through the boom code I found out, that > > setting the 'autostart' variable to 'no' brings me a little closer > > to what I want. But finally I end up > > in the enable_interrupts(

Re: [U-Boot-Users] intended behavior of bootm

2008-04-21 Thread Jerry Van Baren
Matthias Fuchs wrote: > Hi, > > after going through the boom code I found out, that > setting the 'autostart' variable to 'no' brings me a little closer > to what I want. But finally I end up > in the enable_interrupts() at the very end of do_bootm(). This freezes > my system. The reason for this

Re: [U-Boot-Users] intended behavior of bootm

2008-04-21 Thread Matthias Fuchs
Hi, after going through the boom code I found out, that setting the 'autostart' variable to 'no' brings me a little closer to what I want. But finally I end up in the enable_interrupts() at the very end of do_bootm(). This freezes my system. The reason for this is the Linux kernel image that is lo

[U-Boot-Users] intended behavior of bootm

2008-04-21 Thread Matthias Fuchs
Hi, I am wondering if bootm behaves correctly on CRC errors in kernel and/or ramdisk images. This is what I observed: 1) I loaded a Linux kernel into RAM at 0x20 on a 405 system. I loaded an initial ramdisk images into RAM at address 0x30. Now 'bootm 20 30' boots my system corr