Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>> Why? One address is as good as any other.
>> I think statistically you'll find that that isn't true. A built-in DTB is
>> more
>> likely to be present on the flash than an external DTB would be.
>
> Please present the data your
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > Why? One address is as good as any other.
>
> I think statistically you'll find that that isn't true. A built-in DTB is
> more
> likely to be present on the flash than an external DTB would be.
Please present the data your statistics is based on.
Jon Smirl wrote:
> BTW, how do know which DT to dynamically interpret? If you are
> installing a universal uboot you still are going to have to install a
> different DT in each model. If you're installing a different DT you
> might as well install a different uboot.
That's what I was thinking, t
On 8/3/08, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >
> > > What about creating a tool that parses a device tree and creates (or
> > > updates) the board header file? This will retain compatibility with
> > > other platforms, clean up the existin
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Why? One address is as good as any other.
I think statistically you'll find that that isn't true. A built-in DTB is more
likely to be present on the flash than an external DTB would be.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
--
Timur Tabi a écrit :
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Better to just not depend on the DTB at all for basic operation. ie.
>> don't brick the board if the DTB is unavailable.
>
> Is it even possible to have a "recovery mode U-Boot" that is not tied
>
Grant Likely schrieb:
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> If the DTB can be at any
>>> flash location, you can for example have a fall-back version which is
>>> used to bri
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A DTB is only about 8K. I was thinking that a user supplied one would
> override the one contained inside uboot.
How big is the code that parses the FDT right now? I mostly deal with
MIPS and ARM, and haven't used this stuff b
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Grant Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Better to just not depend on the DTB at all for basic operation. ie.
> don't brick the board if the DTB is unavailable.
Is it even possible to have a "recovery mode U-Boot" that is not tied
to the specific board it's built
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > If the DTB can be at any
> > flash location, you can for example have a fall-back version which is
> > used to bring up U-Boot in a minimal configuration for recovery mode
> > if the new DTB fails to work.
>
> I think that a "recovery DTB" wou
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If the DTB can be at any
>> flash location, you can for example have a fall-back version which is
>> used to bring up U-Boot in a minimal con
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the DTB can be at any
> flash location, you can for example have a fall-back version which is
> used to bring up U-Boot in a minimal configuration for recovery mode
> if the new DTB fails to work.
I think that a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > No, no, no. The DTB *must not* be included with the U-Boot image. It
> > shall always be kept separate so we canupdate it independently -
> > otherwise you lose a lot of advantages.
>
> A DTB is only about 8K. I was thinking that a user suppl
On 8/3/08, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >
> > > What about creating a tool that parses a device tree and creates (or
> > > updates) the board header file? This will retain compatibility with
> > > other platforms, clean up the existin
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > What about creating a tool that parses a device tree and creates (or
> > updates) the board header file? This will retain compatibility with
> > other platforms, clean up the existing header files (they won't need
> > to contain as much informatio
On 7/29/08, Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
> > the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
> > from "config.h". I w
Scott Wood wrote:
> Ben Warren wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of header
>>> files, #defines, and #ifdefs...
>> In many ways, yes. But are you an average Joe or a Linux kernel
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
> the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
> from "config.h". I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
> doing this.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of
> header files, #defines, and #ifdefs...
Especially since the various config files
1) often define the CONFIG_ and CFG_ options is different order
2) a
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:30:21AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> I think we should first spend more serious effort towards installing
> Konfig structure and building into the config mix.
Already there in u-boot-v2. Might be worth a deeper look.
rsc
--
Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.peng
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:07:49AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
> the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
> from "config.h". I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
> doing this.
>
> One quest
Kumar Gala wrote:
>> Our main interest in using FDT for U-Boot is to make it dynamically
>> configurable having just one image for various variants of the
>> hardware. Replacing config.h completely seems overkill to me (and
>> will not even be possible).
>
> Agreed. I'm not suggesting repla
Wolfgang Grandegger schrieb:
> André Schwarz wrote:
>> Ben Warren schrieb:
>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Scott Wood
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ben Warren wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> I find a device tree much eas
André Schwarz wrote:
> Ben Warren schrieb:
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Ben Warren wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of
>
Ben Warren schrieb:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ben Warren wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of
header
files, #defi
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I agree, in general I would hope u-boot would be able to still
> boot w/o the device tree information (might be crippled, but you could
> recover).
How about keeping a "fail-safe" blob around somewhere?
Haavard
-
Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> In principle I like the idea of having configuration retrieved from
>> the device tree blob, but the idea of reflashing the blob in the
>> context of u-boot scares me. In particular, if u-boot depends too
>> much on the pres
Ben Warren wrote:
> Uh, yeah. I like the idea of a central repo for hardware info, and
> the device tree concept is good. My point is that the syntax, while
> concise and exact, can be intimidating. Just look at the amount of
> traffic on the mailing lists of people that don't understand what al
On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF
>> was the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree
>> instead of from "config.h". I was wondering if anyone has
>> actually looke
On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:07:49AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
>> the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead
>> of
>> from "config.h". I was wonderin
Kumar Gala wrote:
> One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
> the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
> from "config.h". I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
> doing this.
Last year I brought up the topic twice:
http://
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben Warren wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of
>>> header
>>> files, #defines, and #ifdefs...
>
Ben Warren wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of header
>> files, #defines, and #ifdefs...
>
> In many ways, yes. But are you an average Joe or a Linux kernel
> propellerhead?
Is
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:07:49AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
> the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
> from "config.h". I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
> doing this.
>
> On
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben Warren wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
>>> the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a
Ben Warren wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
>> the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
>> from "config.h". I was wondering if anyone has actually loo
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
> the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
> from "config.h". I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
> doing this.
>
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
from "config.h". I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
doing this.
One question I have is how does (or should) u-boot identify where to
fin
38 matches
Mail list logo
