From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mo-p05-ob.rzone.de (mo-p05-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.181]) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD49B707B for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:52:22 +1000 (EST) From: Stefan Roese To: "Bob Burke" Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerPC 440EPx: Sequoia bootwrapper Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:52:12 +0200 References: <2C7DE72B9BD00F44BAECA5B0CBB873956CDC46@hermes.terascala.com> In-Reply-To: <2C7DE72B9BD00F44BAECA5B0CBB873956CDC46@hermes.terascala.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <200907211852.12901.sr@denx.de> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tuesday 21 July 2009 17:56:40 Bob Burke wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:06:53 Stefan Roese wrote: > > Unfortunately it's not that easy. Earlier Sequoia board revisions are > > equipped with an 33.333MHz oscillator. This can be detected via a > > CPLD register though. > > Thanks, I didn't realize that. FYI our deployed platform is similar to > Sequoia, > but is a custom design. It has a 33 MHz system clock. OK. Then you should add a new target for your custom board (cuboot-namexyz.c). > > But why are you using the boot wrapper? If your U-Boot isn't too old, > > you can boot uImage directly (with dtb of course). No need for the > > wrapper. > > Since we have deployed product, using a non OF kernel, we have made the > decision not to upgrade U-Boot in the field. OK, understood. Thanks, Stefan