U-Boot support for M68K removal

U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 573 bytes --]

Hey all (and especially the non-U-Boot folks / lists),

U-Boot has had support for the m68k architecture for practically forever
it seems like. Unfortunately, it's also been a few years now since I've
seen anyone active in reviewing general patches to the architecture and
doing the little things to keep it up to date and following best
practices. So I'm here asking, does anyone know someone interested in
maintaining U-Boot on m68k, for whatever platforms interest them?
Otherwise, sometime this year I'm likely to drop the architecture.

Thanks!

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

CC Angelo's other address, as sysam.it is MIA.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 2:50 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> Hey all (and especially the non-U-Boot folks / lists),
>
> U-Boot has had support for the m68k architecture for practically forever
> it seems like. Unfortunately, it's also been a few years now since I've
> seen anyone active in reviewing general patches to the architecture and
> doing the little things to keep it up to date and following best
> practices. So I'm here asking, does anyone know someone interested in
> maintaining U-Boot on m68k, for whatever platforms interest them?
> Otherwise, sometime this year I'm likely to drop the architecture.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 712 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 01:49:11PM +0100, Angelo Dureghello wrote:

> Hi Tom and all,
> 
> really have to apologize, had hard times these last 2 years
> and couldn't follow at all the activity, i am totally culprit
> and responsible.
> 
> Now i can jump back on following, if there is any sense
> in keeping m68k/coldfire.
> Let me know, if ok i start back checking all old patches
> from tonight. Also, will have to update my email and rebase
> to master.

I'm glad you're back. I think the first thing to do would be to confirm
that U-Boot still works on at least some supported board, then
confirming you can still access
https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-coldfire

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi!

On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 01:49:11PM +0100, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> 
> > Hi Tom and all,
> > 
> > really have to apologize, had hard times these last 2 years
> > and couldn't follow at all the activity, i am totally culprit
> > and responsible.
> > 
> > Now i can jump back on following, if there is any sense
> > in keeping m68k/coldfire.
> > Let me know, if ok i start back checking all old patches
> > from tonight. Also, will have to update my email and rebase
> > to master.
> 
> I'm glad you're back. I think the first thing to do would be to
> confirm
> that U-Boot still works on at least some supported board, then
> confirming you can still access
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-coldfire
> 

FWIW, m68k is still a very actively maintained architecture in the
Linux kernel and userland with even LLVM and Rust having recently
added support for m68k.

I also own a Coldfire board myself (not sure which one without
looking), so I can offer to test U-Boot patches in the future.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1715 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 05:22:17PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 01:49:11PM +0100, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Tom and all,
> > > 
> > > really have to apologize, had hard times these last 2 years
> > > and couldn't follow at all the activity, i am totally culprit
> > > and responsible.
> > > 
> > > Now i can jump back on following, if there is any sense
> > > in keeping m68k/coldfire.
> > > Let me know, if ok i start back checking all old patches
> > > from tonight. Also, will have to update my email and rebase
> > > to master.
> > 
> > I'm glad you're back. I think the first thing to do would be to
> > confirm
> > that U-Boot still works on at least some supported board, then
> > confirming you can still access
> > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-coldfire
> > 
> 
> FWIW, m68k is still a very actively maintained architecture in the
> Linux kernel and userland with even LLVM and Rust having recently
> added support for m68k.
> 
> I also own a Coldfire board myself (not sure which one without
> looking), so I can offer to test U-Boot patches in the future.

That's great to hear. While I started my life on m68k machines, I never
did get Linux up on one. Do the coldfire platforms you have run U-Boot
today? If so, are they already supported upstream? One of my biggest
concerns about the architecture, in U-Boot, is that I've just not heard
of anyone using it in quite some time, and we don't have any emulated
platforms either (can it be done in QEMU? We have other plaforms in CI
via QEMU) so I worry it's not working.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Eero Tamminen]

Hi,

On 30.1.2023 18.34, Tom Rini wrote:
> That's great to hear. While I started my life on m68k machines, I never
> did get Linux up on one. Do the coldfire platforms you have run U-Boot
> today? If so, are they already supported upstream? One of my biggest
> concerns about the architecture, in U-Boot, is that I've just not heard
> of anyone using it in quite some time, and we don't have any emulated
> platforms either (can it be done in QEMU? We have other plaforms in CI
> via QEMU) so I worry it's not working.

Qemu supports both m68k and ColdFire nowadays: 
https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/target-m68k.html


	- Eero

PS. For m68k there are also a lot of other emulators that emulate 
specific platforms.

Aranym, 68040 Atari "clone", used a lot by Debian m68k port before Qemu 
got m68k support.

WinAUE, 68000-68040 Amiga emulation.  Unlike Aranym or Qemu, this 
emulates also CPU cache.

Hatari, 68000-68040 Atari emulation (based on WinUAE CPU core).

Previous, 68030 NeXT emulator (based on Hatari).

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Eero,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:02 PM Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi> wrote:
> On 30.1.2023 18.34, Tom Rini wrote:
> > That's great to hear. While I started my life on m68k machines, I never
> > did get Linux up on one. Do the coldfire platforms you have run U-Boot
> > today? If so, are they already supported upstream? One of my biggest
> > concerns about the architecture, in U-Boot, is that I've just not heard
> > of anyone using it in quite some time, and we don't have any emulated
> > platforms either (can it be done in QEMU? We have other plaforms in CI
> > via QEMU) so I worry it's not working.
>
> Qemu supports both m68k and ColdFire nowadays:
> https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/target-m68k.html
>
>
>         - Eero
>
> PS. For m68k there are also a lot of other emulators that emulate
> specific platforms.
>
> Aranym, 68040 Atari "clone", used a lot by Debian m68k port before Qemu
> got m68k support.
>
> WinAUE, 68000-68040 Amiga emulation.  Unlike Aranym or Qemu, this
> emulates also CPU cache.
>
> Hatari, 68000-68040 Atari emulation (based on WinUAE CPU core).
>
> Previous, 68030 NeXT emulator (based on Hatari).

But none of the platforms listed above boot using U-Boot, which is
what Tom is interested in...

"qemu-system-m68k -machine help" lists a.o.:

    an5206               Arnewsh 5206
    mcf5208evb           MCF5208EVB (default)

U-Boot still contains include/configs/M5208EVBE.h, but there are no
actual users...

Angelo: so support for amcore in qemu would be nice ;-)

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2052 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 08:10:36PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Eero,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:02 PM Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi> wrote:
> > On 30.1.2023 18.34, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > That's great to hear. While I started my life on m68k machines, I never
> > > did get Linux up on one. Do the coldfire platforms you have run U-Boot
> > > today? If so, are they already supported upstream? One of my biggest
> > > concerns about the architecture, in U-Boot, is that I've just not heard
> > > of anyone using it in quite some time, and we don't have any emulated
> > > platforms either (can it be done in QEMU? We have other plaforms in CI
> > > via QEMU) so I worry it's not working.
> >
> > Qemu supports both m68k and ColdFire nowadays:
> > https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/target-m68k.html
> >
> >
> >         - Eero
> >
> > PS. For m68k there are also a lot of other emulators that emulate
> > specific platforms.
> >
> > Aranym, 68040 Atari "clone", used a lot by Debian m68k port before Qemu
> > got m68k support.
> >
> > WinAUE, 68000-68040 Amiga emulation.  Unlike Aranym or Qemu, this
> > emulates also CPU cache.
> >
> > Hatari, 68000-68040 Atari emulation (based on WinUAE CPU core).
> >
> > Previous, 68030 NeXT emulator (based on Hatari).
> 
> But none of the platforms listed above boot using U-Boot, which is
> what Tom is interested in...
> 
> "qemu-system-m68k -machine help" lists a.o.:
> 
>     an5206               Arnewsh 5206
>     mcf5208evb           MCF5208EVB (default)
> 
> U-Boot still contains include/configs/M5208EVBE.h, but there are no
> actual users...
> 
> Angelo: so support for amcore in qemu would be nice ;-)

I did a little searching after sending and I see there's been some
patches for mcf5208evb and U-Boot, in QEMU but the last message (2019)
was that the CPU emulation wasn't quite complete enough.  But yes, one
way or another, it would be really great to get a virtualized platform
in CI to prevent future breakage.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Greg Ungerer]

Hi Tom,

On 31/1/23 05:31, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 08:10:36PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Hi Eero,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:02 PM Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi> wrote:
>>> On 30.1.2023 18.34, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> That's great to hear. While I started my life on m68k machines, I never
>>>> did get Linux up on one. Do the coldfire platforms you have run U-Boot
>>>> today? If so, are they already supported upstream? One of my biggest
>>>> concerns about the architecture, in U-Boot, is that I've just not heard
>>>> of anyone using it in quite some time, and we don't have any emulated
>>>> platforms either (can it be done in QEMU? We have other plaforms in CI
>>>> via QEMU) so I worry it's not working.
>>>
>>> Qemu supports both m68k and ColdFire nowadays:
>>> https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/target-m68k.html
>>>
>>>
>>>          - Eero
>>>
>>> PS. For m68k there are also a lot of other emulators that emulate
>>> specific platforms.
>>>
>>> Aranym, 68040 Atari "clone", used a lot by Debian m68k port before Qemu
>>> got m68k support.
>>>
>>> WinAUE, 68000-68040 Amiga emulation.  Unlike Aranym or Qemu, this
>>> emulates also CPU cache.
>>>
>>> Hatari, 68000-68040 Atari emulation (based on WinUAE CPU core).
>>>
>>> Previous, 68030 NeXT emulator (based on Hatari).
>>
>> But none of the platforms listed above boot using U-Boot, which is
>> what Tom is interested in...
>>
>> "qemu-system-m68k -machine help" lists a.o.:
>>
>>      an5206               Arnewsh 5206
>>      mcf5208evb           MCF5208EVB (default)
>>
>> U-Boot still contains include/configs/M5208EVBE.h, but there are no
>> actual users...
>>
>> Angelo: so support for amcore in qemu would be nice ;-)
> 
> I did a little searching after sending and I see there's been some
> patches for mcf5208evb and U-Boot, in QEMU but the last message (2019)
> was that the CPU emulation wasn't quite complete enough.  But yes, one
> way or another, it would be really great to get a virtualized platform
> in CI to prevent future breakage.

FWIW the QEMU emulation of the m5208evb is good enough to run Linux.
I do a lot of kernel testing (and development!) using that.

Regards
Greg

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2702 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:50:45AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On 31/1/23 05:31, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 08:10:36PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Hi Eero,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:02 PM Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi> wrote:
> > > > On 30.1.2023 18.34, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > That's great to hear. While I started my life on m68k machines, I never
> > > > > did get Linux up on one. Do the coldfire platforms you have run U-Boot
> > > > > today? If so, are they already supported upstream? One of my biggest
> > > > > concerns about the architecture, in U-Boot, is that I've just not heard
> > > > > of anyone using it in quite some time, and we don't have any emulated
> > > > > platforms either (can it be done in QEMU? We have other plaforms in CI
> > > > > via QEMU) so I worry it's not working.
> > > > 
> > > > Qemu supports both m68k and ColdFire nowadays:
> > > > https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/target-m68k.html
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >          - Eero
> > > > 
> > > > PS. For m68k there are also a lot of other emulators that emulate
> > > > specific platforms.
> > > > 
> > > > Aranym, 68040 Atari "clone", used a lot by Debian m68k port before Qemu
> > > > got m68k support.
> > > > 
> > > > WinAUE, 68000-68040 Amiga emulation.  Unlike Aranym or Qemu, this
> > > > emulates also CPU cache.
> > > > 
> > > > Hatari, 68000-68040 Atari emulation (based on WinUAE CPU core).
> > > > 
> > > > Previous, 68030 NeXT emulator (based on Hatari).
> > > 
> > > But none of the platforms listed above boot using U-Boot, which is
> > > what Tom is interested in...
> > > 
> > > "qemu-system-m68k -machine help" lists a.o.:
> > > 
> > >      an5206               Arnewsh 5206
> > >      mcf5208evb           MCF5208EVB (default)
> > > 
> > > U-Boot still contains include/configs/M5208EVBE.h, but there are no
> > > actual users...
> > > 
> > > Angelo: so support for amcore in qemu would be nice ;-)
> > 
> > I did a little searching after sending and I see there's been some
> > patches for mcf5208evb and U-Boot, in QEMU but the last message (2019)
> > was that the CPU emulation wasn't quite complete enough.  But yes, one
> > way or another, it would be really great to get a virtualized platform
> > in CI to prevent future breakage.
> 
> FWIW the QEMU emulation of the m5208evb is good enough to run Linux.
> I do a lot of kernel testing (and development!) using that.

That's good to know! I was a little surprised at the message and it's
possible that the platform was just broken in U-Boot and the person
assumed that it was a QEMU issue instead.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Angelo Dureghello]

Hi Greg,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:50 PM Greg Ungerer <gerg@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> On 31/1/23 05:31, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 08:10:36PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> Hi Eero,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:02 PM Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi> wrote:
> >>> On 30.1.2023 18.34, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>> That's great to hear. While I started my life on m68k machines, I never
> >>>> did get Linux up on one. Do the coldfire platforms you have run U-Boot
> >>>> today? If so, are they already supported upstream? One of my biggest
> >>>> concerns about the architecture, in U-Boot, is that I've just not heard
> >>>> of anyone using it in quite some time, and we don't have any emulated
> >>>> platforms either (can it be done in QEMU? We have other plaforms in CI
> >>>> via QEMU) so I worry it's not working.
> >>>
> >>> Qemu supports both m68k and ColdFire nowadays:
> >>> https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/target-m68k.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>          - Eero
> >>>
> >>> PS. For m68k there are also a lot of other emulators that emulate
> >>> specific platforms.
> >>>
> >>> Aranym, 68040 Atari "clone", used a lot by Debian m68k port before Qemu
> >>> got m68k support.
> >>>
> >>> WinAUE, 68000-68040 Amiga emulation.  Unlike Aranym or Qemu, this
> >>> emulates also CPU cache.
> >>>
> >>> Hatari, 68000-68040 Atari emulation (based on WinUAE CPU core).
> >>>
> >>> Previous, 68030 NeXT emulator (based on Hatari).
> >>
> >> But none of the platforms listed above boot using U-Boot, which is
> >> what Tom is interested in...
> >>
> >> "qemu-system-m68k -machine help" lists a.o.:
> >>
> >>      an5206               Arnewsh 5206
> >>      mcf5208evb           MCF5208EVB (default)
> >>
> >> U-Boot still contains include/configs/M5208EVBE.h, but there are no
> >> actual users...
> >>
> >> Angelo: so support for amcore in qemu would be nice ;-)
> >
> > I did a little searching after sending and I see there's been some
> > patches for mcf5208evb and U-Boot, in QEMU but the last message (2019)
> > was that the CPU emulation wasn't quite complete enough.  But yes, one
> > way or another, it would be really great to get a virtualized platform
> > in CI to prevent future breakage.
>
> FWIW the QEMU emulation of the m5208evb is good enough to run Linux.
> I do a lot of kernel testing (and development!) using that.
>
Thanks for the info !


> Regards
> Greg
>

Regards,
angelo
>


-- 
Angelo Dureghello
Timesys
e. angelo.dureghello@timesys.com

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Angelo Dureghello]

Hi Ereo,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:02 PM Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 30.1.2023 18.34, Tom Rini wrote:
> > That's great to hear. While I started my life on m68k machines, I never
> > did get Linux up on one. Do the coldfire platforms you have run U-Boot
> > today? If so, are they already supported upstream? One of my biggest
> > concerns about the architecture, in U-Boot, is that I've just not heard
> > of anyone using it in quite some time, and we don't have any emulated
> > platforms either (can it be done in QEMU? We have other plaforms in CI
> > via QEMU) so I worry it's not working.
>
> Qemu supports both m68k and ColdFire nowadays:
> https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/system/target-m68k.html
>
>
>         - Eero
>
> PS. For m68k there are also a lot of other emulators that emulate
> specific platforms.
>
> Aranym, 68040 Atari "clone", used a lot by Debian m68k port before Qemu
> got m68k support.
>
> WinAUE, 68000-68040 Amiga emulation.  Unlike Aranym or Qemu, this
> emulates also CPU cache.
>
> Hatari, 68000-68040 Atari emulation (based on WinUAE CPU core).
>
> Previous, 68030 NeXT emulator (based on Hatari).
>

Thanks, will have a look if last qemu works for ColdFire.

angelo


-- 
Angelo Dureghello
Timesys
e. angelo.dureghello@timesys.com

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 17:22 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> FWIW, m68k is still a very actively maintained architecture in the
> Linux kernel and userland with even LLVM and Rust having recently
> added support for m68k.
> 
> I also own a Coldfire board myself (not sure which one without
> looking), so I can offer to test U-Boot patches in the future.

So, I just found my Coldfire board and it's actually a 547x/548x EVB
fitted with a 5475 CPU module clocked at 266 MHz.

I will get this board set up during the next weeks and I am happy to
test any Coldfire kernel patches, and eventually, U-Boot patches if
that board is still supported.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Angelo Dureghello]

Hi John,

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 4:55 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 17:22 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > FWIW, m68k is still a very actively maintained architecture in the
> > Linux kernel and userland with even LLVM and Rust having recently
> > added support for m68k.
> >
> > I also own a Coldfire board myself (not sure which one without
> > looking), so I can offer to test U-Boot patches in the future.
>
> So, I just found my Coldfire board and it's actually a 547x/548x EVB
> fitted with a 5475 CPU module clocked at 266 MHz.
>
> I will get this board set up during the next weeks and I am happy to
> test any Coldfire kernel patches, and eventually, U-Boot patches if
> that board is still supported.
>

thanks a lot.

Actually, i am debugging on a 54415 based board, totally dead
using current master.
I cannot printf, so using some gpio's for debug.
Issue seems to happen at first puts, so, something related
to serial port initialization. Hope to fix this soon.

>
> Adrian
>
> --
>  .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' :  Debian Developer
> `. `'   Physicist
>   `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


Regards,
angelo

-- 
Angelo Dureghello
Timesys
e. angelo.dureghello@timesys.com

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Greg Ungerer]

On 6/2/23 18:14, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 4:55 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 17:22 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> FWIW, m68k is still a very actively maintained architecture in the
>>> Linux kernel and userland with even LLVM and Rust having recently
>>> added support for m68k.
>>>
>>> I also own a Coldfire board myself (not sure which one without
>>> looking), so I can offer to test U-Boot patches in the future.
>>
>> So, I just found my Coldfire board and it's actually a 547x/548x EVB
>> fitted with a 5475 CPU module clocked at 266 MHz.
>>
>> I will get this board set up during the next weeks and I am happy to
>> test any Coldfire kernel patches, and eventually, U-Boot patches if
>> that board is still supported.
>>
> 
> thanks a lot.
> 
> Actually, i am debugging on a 54415 based board, totally dead
> using current master.
> I cannot printf, so using some gpio's for debug.
> Issue seems to happen at first puts, so, something related
> to serial port initialization. Hope to fix this soon.

I wish I had a 54415 based board in my collection. Would make it so
much easier to keep the kernel working on it :-(

Regards
Greg



>>
>> Adrian
>>
>> --
>>   .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>> : :' :  Debian Developer
>> `. `'   Physicist
>>    `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
> 
> 
> Regards,
> angelo
> 

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi Greg!

On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 22:02 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> I wish I had a 54415 based board in my collection. Would make it so
> much easier to keep the kernel working on it :-(

Maybe we can find one to buy for you. I would be happy to donate for it.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 13:25 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 22:02 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > I wish I had a 54415 based board in my collection. Would make it so
> > much easier to keep the kernel working on it :-(
> 
> Maybe we can find one to buy for you. I would be happy to donate for it.

Btw, what environment are you using to test Coldfire kernel patches?

Do you use Buildroot to create a bootable ColdFire chroot?

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Greg Ungerer]

Hi Adrian,

On 6/2/23 22:30, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 13:25 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 22:02 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>>> I wish I had a 54415 based board in my collection. Would make it so
>>> much easier to keep the kernel working on it :-(
>>
>> Maybe we can find one to buy for you. I would be happy to donate for it.
> 
> Btw, what environment are you using to test Coldfire kernel patches?
> 
> Do you use Buildroot to create a bootable ColdFire chroot?

I mostly use this for generating user space:

     https://github.com/AcceleratedLinux/accelerated-linux

It is an off shoot of the older uClinux-dist build packages.

Recently I have just been hand rolling scripts too:

     https://github.com/AcceleratedLinux/accelerated-linux

That has been useful for testing using ELF format binaries in no-MMU space.

I have used buildroot in the past too.

Regards
Greg

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Greg Ungerer]

Hi Adrian,

On 6/2/23 22:25, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Greg!
> 
> On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 22:02 +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>> I wish I had a 54415 based board in my collection. Would make it so
>> much easier to keep the kernel working on it :-(
> 
> Maybe we can find one to buy for you. I would be happy to donate for it.

I'll gladly accept any surplus boards anyone has.
I have quite a few of the older ColdFire evaluation boards, but not all.
I only have a single M5475EVB for MMU testing currently though.

Regards
Greg

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Angelo Dureghello]

Hi Greg,

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 1:02 PM Greg Ungerer <gerg@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>

> I wish I had a 54415 based board in my collection. Would make it so
> much easier to keep the kernel working on it :-(
>
> Regards
> Greg
>

I can solder here one additional stmark2 for you when i find the time.

You can send me your data at
angelo AT kernel-space.org

Regards
-- 
angelo

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Greg Ungerer]

Hi Angelo,

On 6/2/23 22:59, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 1:02 PM Greg Ungerer <gerg@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>
> 
>> I wish I had a 54415 based board in my collection. Would make it so
>> much easier to keep the kernel working on it :-(
>>
>> Regards
>> Greg
>>
> 
> I can solder here one additional stmark2 for you when i find the time.
> 
> You can send me your data at
> angelo AT kernel-space.org

That would be fantastic, thanks!

Regards
Greg

Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1457 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 08:22:15PM +0100, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> thanks a lot, and thanks Geert for forwarding this :)
> 
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 5:14 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 01:49:11PM +0100, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Tom and all,
> > >
> > > really have to apologize, had hard times these last 2 years
> > > and couldn't follow at all the activity, i am totally culprit
> > > and responsible.
> > >
> > > Now i can jump back on following, if there is any sense
> > > in keeping m68k/coldfire.
> > > Let me know, if ok i start back checking all old patches
> > > from tonight. Also, will have to update my email and rebase
> > > to master.
> >
> > I'm glad you're back. I think the first thing to do would be to confirm
> > that U-Boot still works on at least some supported board, then
> > confirming you can still access
> > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-coldfire
> >
> first 2 tests:
> 
> 1) rebased u-boot to master, flashed to stmark2 (mcf54415),
> no boot, black console. Working on this.

OK.  Based on some other reports in general, I suspect there's probably
2 or 3 different bugs uncovered / introduced.  Hopefully it's not too
hard to flash and test so bisect'ing these down won't be super painful.

> 2) seems i can still access
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-coldfire

Great!

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]