[RFC] default u-boot

[RFC] default u-boot

[Daiane Angolini]

What's the default u-boot version for gk802???

The provider is u-boot-imx6dongle, but I cannot see the u-boot version
from its github source code.


I would like to know what's the plan to add gk802 support on
u-boot-fslc (mainline).


Is the default version for nitrogen and sabrelite (u-boot-boundary) 2013.01?

I would like to know what's the plan to add both support on u-boot-fslc

Today, I can see we have 4 u-boot providers:

u-boot-imx -> freescale
u-boot-fslc -> mainline
u-boot-boundary - boundary (for nitrogen)
u-boot-imx6dongle -> ???????

Could someone send me a small description of u-boot-boundary and
u-boot-imx6dongle? Just like I already have for u-boot-imx and
u-boot-fslc from
http://freescale.github.io/doc/release-notes/1.4/index.html#document-u-boot
?


Thanks in advance,
Daiane

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Eric Nelson]

Hi Daiane,

On 10/09/2013 05:28 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
> What's the default u-boot version for gk802???
>
> The provider is u-boot-imx6dongle, but I cannot see the u-boot version
> from its github source code.
>
> I would like to know what's the plan to add gk802 support on
> u-boot-fslc (mainline).
>
>
> Is the default version for nitrogen and sabrelite (u-boot-boundary) 2013.01?
>
No. The current release of u-boot-boundary is 2013.07:
	http://boundarydevices.com/u-boot-2013-07-release/

The sources are in our Github repository (production branch is
what we're currently shipping with boards);
	https://github.com/boundarydevices/u-boot-imx6/tree/production

We try to keep this in-line with true main-line U-Boot, but use
it as a staging area so we can be a bit more responsive to customer
needs. The primary deltas at this point are additional boards
(nit6xlite is not yet in main-line), support for additional
displays, and support for custom boards.

> I would like to know what's the plan to add both support on u-boot-fslc
>
I have to admit that I've never looked at u-boot-fslc. I thought it was
only used for PPC boards.

> Today, I can see we have 4 u-boot providers:
>
> u-boot-imx -> freescale
> u-boot-fslc -> mainline
> u-boot-boundary - boundary (for nitrogen)
	(and SABRE Lite and Nitrogen6-Lite)
> u-boot-imx6dongle -> ???????
>
> Could someone send me a small description of u-boot-boundary and
> u-boot-imx6dongle? Just like I already have for u-boot-imx and
> u-boot-fslc from
> http://freescale.github.io/doc/release-notes/1.4/index.html#document-u-boot
> ?
>
I'll take a look at that when I have some more time to spend.

Regards,


Eric

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Daiane Angolini]

On 10/09/2013 10:59 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
> Hi Daiane,
>
> On 10/09/2013 05:28 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
>> What's the default u-boot version for gk802???
>>
>> The provider is u-boot-imx6dongle, but I cannot see the u-boot version
>> from its github source code.
>>
>> I would like to know what's the plan to add gk802 support on
>> u-boot-fslc (mainline).
>>
>>
>> Is the default version for nitrogen and sabrelite (u-boot-boundary)
>> 2013.01?
>>
> No. The current release of u-boot-boundary is 2013.07:
>      http://boundarydevices.com/u-boot-2013-07-release/

Thanks, I changed the docs already.

>
> The sources are in our Github repository (production branch is
> what we're currently shipping with boards);
>      https://github.com/boundarydevices/u-boot-imx6/tree/production
>
> We try to keep this in-line with true main-line U-Boot, but use
> it as a staging area so we can be a bit more responsive to customer
> needs. The primary deltas at this point are additional boards
> (nit6xlite is not yet in main-line), support for additional
> displays, and support for custom boards.

I used your last sentence to make a description. Please, take a look on
https://github.com/Freescale/Documentation/blob/master/release-notes/source/u-boot.rst

And let me know if you want to change anything.

>
>> I would like to know what's the plan to add both support on u-boot-fslc
>>
> I have to admit that I've never looked at u-boot-fslc. I thought it was
> only used for PPC boards.

u-boot-fslc is our recipe that points to "trye main-line U-Boot". It's 
hosted on github only to keep some needed backport patches.

>
>> Today, I can see we have 4 u-boot providers:
>>
>> u-boot-imx -> freescale
>> u-boot-fslc -> mainline
>> u-boot-boundary - boundary (for nitrogen)
>      (and SABRE Lite and Nitrogen6-Lite)
>> u-boot-imx6dongle -> ???????
>>
>> Could someone send me a small description of u-boot-boundary and
>> u-boot-imx6dongle? Just like I already have for u-boot-imx and
>> u-boot-fslc from
>> http://freescale.github.io/doc/release-notes/1.4/index.html#document-u-boot
>>
>> ?
>>
> I'll take a look at that when I have some more time to spend.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> meta-freescale mailing list
> meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
>

Thanks a lot,
-- 
Daiane

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Eric Nelson]

Hi Daiane,

On 10/10/2013 05:47 AM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
> On 10/09/2013 10:59 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>> On 10/09/2013 05:28 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
 >>
 >> <snip>
 >>
>>> Is the default version for nitrogen and sabrelite (u-boot-boundary)
>>> 2013.01?
>>>
>> No. The current release of u-boot-boundary is 2013.07:
>>      http://boundarydevices.com/u-boot-2013-07-release/
>
> Thanks, I changed the docs already.
>
>>
>> The sources are in our Github repository (production branch is
>> what we're currently shipping with boards);
>>      https://github.com/boundarydevices/u-boot-imx6/tree/production
>>
>> We try to keep this in-line with true main-line U-Boot, but use
>> it as a staging area so we can be a bit more responsive to customer
>> needs. The primary deltas at this point are additional boards
>> (nit6xlite is not yet in main-line), support for additional
>> displays, and support for custom boards.
>
> I used your last sentence to make a description. Please, take a look on
> https://github.com/Freescale/Documentation/blob/master/release-notes/source/u-boot.rst
>
> And let me know if you want to change anything.
>

This looks good. Thanks.

>>
>>> I would like to know what's the plan to add both support on u-boot-fslc
>>>
>> I have to admit that I've never looked at u-boot-fslc. I thought it was
>> only used for PPC boards.
>
> u-boot-fslc is our recipe that points to "trye main-line U-Boot". It's
> hosted on github only to keep some needed backport patches.
>

IOW, the same thing we use ours for. If it makes things easier, we could
push a 'boundary' branch there when we update things.

Regards,


Eric

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Daiane Angolini]

On 10/10/2013 11:26 AM, Eric Nelson wrote:
> Hi Daiane,
>
> On 10/10/2013 05:47 AM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
>> On 10/09/2013 10:59 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2013 05:28 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
>  >>
>  >> <snip>
>  >>
>>>> Is the default version for nitrogen and sabrelite (u-boot-boundary)
>>>> 2013.01?
>>>>
>>> No. The current release of u-boot-boundary is 2013.07:
>>>      http://boundarydevices.com/u-boot-2013-07-release/
>>
>> Thanks, I changed the docs already.
>>
>>>
>>> The sources are in our Github repository (production branch is
>>> what we're currently shipping with boards);
>>>      https://github.com/boundarydevices/u-boot-imx6/tree/production
>>>
>>> We try to keep this in-line with true main-line U-Boot, but use
>>> it as a staging area so we can be a bit more responsive to customer
>>> needs. The primary deltas at this point are additional boards
>>> (nit6xlite is not yet in main-line), support for additional
>>> displays, and support for custom boards.
>>
>> I used your last sentence to make a description. Please, take a look on
>> https://github.com/Freescale/Documentation/blob/master/release-notes/source/u-boot.rst
>>
>>
>> And let me know if you want to change anything.
>>
>
> This looks good. Thanks.
>
>>>
>>>> I would like to know what's the plan to add both support on u-boot-fslc
>>>>
>>> I have to admit that I've never looked at u-boot-fslc. I thought it was
>>> only used for PPC boards.
>>
>> u-boot-fslc is our recipe that points to "trye main-line U-Boot". It's
>> hosted on github only to keep some needed backport patches.
>>
>
> IOW, the same thing we use ours for. If it makes things easier, we could
> push a 'boundary' branch there when we update things.

<3

I think it would be perfect =D
(if not for Dora, absolutely for 1.6)

Otavio, what do you think?


Daiane

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Daiane Angolini
<daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 11:26 AM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>> u-boot-fslc is our recipe that points to "trye main-line U-Boot". It's
>>> hosted on github only to keep some needed backport patches.
>>>
>>
>> IOW, the same thing we use ours for. If it makes things easier, we could
>> push a 'boundary' branch there when we update things.
>
>
> <3
>
> I think it would be perfect =D
> (if not for Dora, absolutely for 1.6)
>
> Otavio, what do you think?

I am not sure; I think the u-boot-boundary gives the clear notion it
is something done by Bondary. If we'd use u-boot-fslc we'd need to
have the changes in same branch as used by other boards or it loses
its meaning.

My goal with u-boot-fslc is to have a /single/ u-boot for most boards;
so it is essentially U-Boot mainline plus bugfixes; supporting
multiple branches for different boards I think it will confuse people.

It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
newer revisions.

Please don't take it as written in stone, it is just my current point of view.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Eric Nelson]

Hi all,

On 10/10/2013 09:28 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Daiane Angolini
> <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2013 11:26 AM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>>> u-boot-fslc is our recipe that points to "trye main-line U-Boot". It's
>>>> hosted on github only to keep some needed backport patches.
>>>>
>>>
>>> IOW, the same thing we use ours for. If it makes things easier, we could
>>> push a 'boundary' branch there when we update things.
>>
>>
>> <3
>>
>> I think it would be perfect =D
>> (if not for Dora, absolutely for 1.6)
>>
>> Otavio, what do you think?
>
> I am not sure; I think the u-boot-boundary gives the clear notion it
> is something done by Bondary. If we'd use u-boot-fslc we'd need to
> have the changes in same branch as used by other boards or it loses
> its meaning.
>
> My goal with u-boot-fslc is to have a /single/ u-boot for most boards;
> so it is essentially U-Boot mainline plus bugfixes; supporting
> multiple branches for different boards I think it will confuse people.
>
> It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
> it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
> newer revisions.
>

We'll make sure to update with each switch in our production branch.

Regards,


Eric

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Otavio Salvador]

Hello Eric,

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Eric Nelson
<eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 09:28 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
>> it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
>> newer revisions.
>>
>
> We'll make sure to update with each switch in our production branch.

Great; this is the way to go.

Could you please update the current SRCREV and PV values to match the
current state?

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Eric Nelson]

Hi Otavio,

On 10/10/2013 10:44 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello Eric,
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Eric Nelson
> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2013 09:28 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
>>> it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
>>> newer revisions.
>>>
>>
>> We'll make sure to update with each switch in our production branch.
>
> Great; this is the way to go.
>
> Could you please update the current SRCREV and PV values to match the
> current state?
>

This is essentially done... meta-fsl-arm-extra is only one patch behind
(a custom board).

We're expecting to issue our next release after 2013.10 is finalized.

Regards,


Eric

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Daiane Angolini]

On 10/10/2013 04:10 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
> Hi Otavio,
>
> On 10/10/2013 10:44 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Hello Eric,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Eric Nelson
>> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2013 09:28 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>> It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
>>>> it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
>>>> newer revisions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We'll make sure to update with each switch in our production branch.
>>
>> Great; this is the way to go.
>>
>> Could you please update the current SRCREV and PV values to match the
>> current state?
>>
>
> This is essentially done... meta-fsl-arm-extra is only one patch behind
> (a custom board).
>
> We're expecting to issue our next release after 2013.10 is finalized.

is this targeting Dora as well?

>
> Regards,
>
>
> Eric
>


-- 
Daiane

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Eric Nelson]

Hi Daiane,

On 10/10/2013 12:10 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 04:10 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>> Hi Otavio,
>>
>> On 10/10/2013 10:44 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> Hello Eric,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Eric Nelson
>>> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/10/2013 09:28 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>> It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
>>>>> it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
>>>>> newer revisions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll make sure to update with each switch in our production branch.
>>>
>>> Great; this is the way to go.
>>>
>>> Could you please update the current SRCREV and PV values to match the
>>> current state?
>>>
>>
>> This is essentially done... meta-fsl-arm-extra is only one patch behind
>> (a custom board).
>>
>> We're expecting to issue our next release after 2013.10 is finalized.
>
> is this targeting Dora as well?
>

U-Boot doesn't really have much of a relationship with any particular
userspace.

We use the same version to boot Android, WEC7, QNX and other O/S's.

That said, we're completely focused on Dora. As far as we can tell,
it's in much better shape on i.MX6 than Dylan.

We will address a couple of quirks in loading DT-kernels in the
next release. Notably, you currently need to set 'fdt_addr' and
'fdt_high' before using 3.5.7 or 3.10.9:

	http://boundarydevices.com/i-mx6-3-5-7-alpha-release/#comment-63691

Regards,


Eric

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Daiane Angolini]

On 10/10/2013 04:35 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
> Hi Daiane,
>
> On 10/10/2013 12:10 PM, Daiane Angolini wrote:
>> On 10/10/2013 04:10 PM, Eric Nelson wrote:
>>> Hi Otavio,
>>>
>>> On 10/10/2013 10:44 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>> Hello Eric,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Eric Nelson
>>>> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/10/2013 09:28 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>> It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
>>>>>> it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
>>>>>> newer revisions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll make sure to update with each switch in our production branch.
>>>>
>>>> Great; this is the way to go.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please update the current SRCREV and PV values to match the
>>>> current state?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is essentially done... meta-fsl-arm-extra is only one patch behind
>>> (a custom board).
>>>
>>> We're expecting to issue our next release after 2013.10 is finalized.
>>
>> is this targeting Dora as well?
>>
>
> U-Boot doesn't really have much of a relationship with any particular
> userspace.

I'm sorry. I think I made you misunderstand my request.

I have a release notes to write. and I need to write the right version 
on documentation.

If you plan to change the u-boot version for dora at some point, I 
prefer to write the changed version on documents right now, or leave me 
a note someplace for pay attention on this u-boot provider later and 
change the docs in-time.

If there is no plan to change the u-boot-boundary version for Dora, I 
will consider u-boot.rst done for review only.

=D

>
> We use the same version to boot Android, WEC7, QNX and other O/S's.
>
> That said, we're completely focused on Dora. As far as we can tell,
> it's in much better shape on i.MX6 than Dylan.
>
> We will address a couple of quirks in loading DT-kernels in the
> next release. Notably, you currently need to set 'fdt_addr' and
> 'fdt_high' before using 3.5.7 or 3.10.9:
>
>      http://boundarydevices.com/i-mx6-3-5-7-alpha-release/#comment-63691
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Eric
>

Regards,
-- 
Daiane

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Nelson
<eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 10:44 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Eric Nelson
>> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/10/2013 09:28 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
>>>> it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
>>>> newer revisions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We'll make sure to update with each switch in our production branch.
>>
>>
>> Great; this is the way to go.
>>
>> Could you please update the current SRCREV and PV values to match the
>> current state?
>>
>
> This is essentially done... meta-fsl-arm-extra is only one patch behind
> (a custom board).
>
> We're expecting to issue our next release after 2013.10 is finalized.

Great; so PV might be updated? for 2013.07 I think.

I think this was the root cause of Daiane's confusion as it points 2013.01.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Daiane Angolini]

On 10/10/2013 04:16 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Nelson
> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2013 10:44 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Eric Nelson
>>> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/10/2013 09:28 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
>>>>> it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
>>>>> newer revisions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll make sure to update with each switch in our production branch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Great; this is the way to go.
>>>
>>> Could you please update the current SRCREV and PV values to match the
>>> current state?
>>>
>>
>> This is essentially done... meta-fsl-arm-extra is only one patch behind
>> (a custom board).
>>
>> We're expecting to issue our next release after 2013.10 is finalized.
>
> Great; so PV might be updated? for 2013.07 I think.
>
> I think this was the root cause of Daiane's confusion as it points 2013.01.

Oh, good point.

It made me remember I was wondering yesterday night if we want to have a 
pattern/standard for the string added after kernel version for all 
providers!
(and how to descriver both u-boot and linux providers)

Because it's a mess today.



-- 
Daiane

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Eric Nelson]

On 10/10/2013 12:16 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Nelson
> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2013 10:44 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Eric Nelson
>>> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/10/2013 09:28 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
>>>>> it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
>>>>> newer revisions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll make sure to update with each switch in our production branch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Great; this is the way to go.
>>>
>>> Could you please update the current SRCREV and PV values to match the
>>> current state?
>>>
>>
>> This is essentially done... meta-fsl-arm-extra is only one patch behind
>> (a custom board).
>>
>> We're expecting to issue our next release after 2013.10 is finalized.
>
> Great; so PV might be updated? for 2013.07 I think.
>

Whoops. It looks like we missed this.

I just sent a patch.

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Dmitriy B.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1514 bytes --]

Hello,

2013/10/10 Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com>

> What's the default u-boot version for gk802???
>
> The provider is u-boot-imx6dongle, but I cannot see the u-boot version
> from its github source code.
>

The standard imx6-dongle U-boot version is boundarydevices u-boot branch
from 8 months old. Unfortunately I cant tell the exact number. At the time
our project was started - that was most advanced/patched version available
around.

Unfortunately, shortly after we've got almost everything working - main
developers lost interest and there were no further updates to new freescale
BSPs. Also I want to mention that for some of the devices that can be even
impossible - 2 first batches of GK802/Hi802 had pre-release silicon (the
one with P as first letter in part number). As far as I know, new BSPs may
have problems with this tapeout. Correct me if I'm wrong.

About recent activity around GK802/Hi802 - Ajay Ramaswamy proposed to
change the current selected version to his branch
https://github.com/ajayramaswamy/u-boot-gk802/commits/yocto-gk802 which is
in fact, based on fresh freescale's release. He also has fresh kernel-side
update.


> I would like to know what's the plan to add gk802 support on
> u-boot-fslc (mainline).
>

Check this branch
https://github.com/imx6-dongle/uboot-imx6dongle/commits/for-upstream
Unfortunately, this was never sent to u-boot mainline.

Hope this clears out questions about GK802/Hi802.
Best Regards,
Dmitriy Beykun

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2440 bytes --]

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Daiane Angolini]

On 10/10/2013 01:32 PM, Dmitriy B. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2013/10/10 Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com
> <mailto:daiane.list@gmail.com>>
>
>     What's the default u-boot version for gk802???
>
>     The provider is u-boot-imx6dongle, but I cannot see the u-boot version
>     from its github source code.
>
>
> The standard imx6-dongle U-boot version is boundarydevices u-boot branch
> from 8 months old. Unfortunately I cant tell the exact number. At the
> time our project was started - that was most advanced/patched version
> available around.

My main problem now is the Release Note gap. So would you, please, 
create a default image and see on boot log what is the default version 
of u-boot?

>
> Unfortunately, shortly after we've got almost everything working - main
> developers lost interest and there were no further updates to new
> freescale BSPs. Also I want to mention that for some of the devices that
> can be even impossible - 2 first batches of GK802/Hi802 had pre-release
> silicon (the one with P as first letter in part number). As far as I
> know, new BSPs may have problems with this tapeout. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, older tapeouts is not supported on 4.1.0 release, as i know.

>
> About recent activity around GK802/Hi802 - Ajay Ramaswamy proposed to
> change the current selected version to his branch
> https://github.com/ajayramaswamy/u-boot-gk802/commits/yocto-gk802 which
> is in fact, based on fresh freescale's release. He also has fresh
> kernel-side update.
>
>     I would like to know what's the plan to add gk802 support on
>     u-boot-fslc (mainline).
>
>
> Check this branch
> https://github.com/imx6-dongle/uboot-imx6dongle/commits/for-upstream
> Unfortunately, this was never sent to u-boot mainline.

Oh! That's good news! So you have somehow a newer uboot/kernel for this 
board!

Do you think you could send patches to update it for Dora? If it's too 
close, you could send for 1.6?

Another thing. Could you, please, think about one sentence description 
of your default u-boot? See here
https://github.com/Freescale/Documentation/blob/master/release-notes/source/u-boot.rst

What I did for u-boot-imx, u-boot-fslc, u-boot-boundary



>
> Hope this clears out questions about GK802/Hi802.
> Best Regards,
> Dmitriy Beykun



Thanks in advance!
-- 
Daiane

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Haakon Stende]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3569 bytes --]

The uboot for gk802 doesn't build on yocto dora in current state. It uses
wrong toolchain.

The 4.1.0 kernel hasn't the latest vivante stuff.
It had an older version of  4.6.9 build 1210  and not 4.6.9 build 6622 so
xorg would not start.
I tried using the kernel/driver/mxc/gpu-viv from and kerneltree from a
build from wandboard-quad and made a kernel for gk802, used another uboot
and with that I got the fsl-image-gui (using wandboard-quad as machineid)
working with xorg.



2013/10/10 Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com>

> On 10/10/2013 01:32 PM, Dmitriy B. wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> 2013/10/10 Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com
>> <mailto:daiane.list@gmail.com>**>
>>
>>
>>     What's the default u-boot version for gk802???
>>
>>     The provider is u-boot-imx6dongle, but I cannot see the u-boot version
>>     from its github source code.
>>
>>
>> The standard imx6-dongle U-boot version is boundarydevices u-boot branch
>> from 8 months old. Unfortunately I cant tell the exact number. At the
>> time our project was started - that was most advanced/patched version
>> available around.
>>
>
> My main problem now is the Release Note gap. So would you, please, create
> a default image and see on boot log what is the default version of u-boot?
>
>
>
>> Unfortunately, shortly after we've got almost everything working - main
>> developers lost interest and there were no further updates to new
>> freescale BSPs. Also I want to mention that for some of the devices that
>> can be even impossible - 2 first batches of GK802/Hi802 had pre-release
>> silicon (the one with P as first letter in part number). As far as I
>> know, new BSPs may have problems with this tapeout. Correct me if I'm
>> wrong.
>>
>
> Yes, older tapeouts is not supported on 4.1.0 release, as i know.
>
>
>
>> About recent activity around GK802/Hi802 - Ajay Ramaswamy proposed to
>> change the current selected version to his branch
>> https://github.com/**ajayramaswamy/u-boot-gk802/**commits/yocto-gk802<https://github.com/ajayramaswamy/u-boot-gk802/commits/yocto-gk802>which
>> is in fact, based on fresh freescale's release. He also has fresh
>> kernel-side update.
>>
>>     I would like to know what's the plan to add gk802 support on
>>     u-boot-fslc (mainline).
>>
>>
>> Check this branch
>> https://github.com/imx6-**dongle/uboot-imx6dongle/**commits/for-upstream<https://github.com/imx6-dongle/uboot-imx6dongle/commits/for-upstream>
>> Unfortunately, this was never sent to u-boot mainline.
>>
>
> Oh! That's good news! So you have somehow a newer uboot/kernel for this
> board!
>
> Do you think you could send patches to update it for Dora? If it's too
> close, you could send for 1.6?
>
> Another thing. Could you, please, think about one sentence description of
> your default u-boot? See here
> https://github.com/Freescale/**Documentation/blob/master/**
> release-notes/source/u-boot.**rst<https://github.com/Freescale/Documentation/blob/master/release-notes/source/u-boot.rst>
>
> What I did for u-boot-imx, u-boot-fslc, u-boot-boundary
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hope this clears out questions about GK802/Hi802.
>> Best Regards,
>> Dmitriy Beykun
>>
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance!
> --
> Daiane
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> meta-freescale mailing list
> meta-freescale@yoctoproject.**org <meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org>
> https://lists.yoctoproject.**org/listinfo/meta-freescale<https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5294 bytes --]

Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Haakon Stende <stende@gmail.com> wrote:
> The uboot for gk802 doesn't build on yocto dora in current state. It uses
> wrong toolchain.
>
> The 4.1.0 kernel hasn't the latest vivante stuff.
> It had an older version of  4.6.9 build 1210  and not 4.6.9 build 6622 so
> xorg would not start.
> I tried using the kernel/driver/mxc/gpu-viv from and kerneltree from a build
> from wandboard-quad and made a kernel for gk802, used another uboot and with
> that I got the fsl-image-gui (using wandboard-quad as machineid) working
> with xorg.

This needs to be fixed or we should drop gk802 from the release.

It being bad supported just causes confusion and gives the impression
it is a BSP failure while in reality it is more a gk802 specific
failure.

Is someone willing to step in and properly work in gk802 and get it in
an usable state? otherwise I'd say we should drop it and it can be
readd when we have someone to proper maintain it.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750