Re: [cbootimage PATCH v3 0/3] Add support for Tegra210

[Thierry Reding <treding-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1415 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:26:10PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 06:20 PM, Jimmy Zhang wrote:
> >Four t210 specific supporting files are added under src/t210 diretory.
> >Comparing T210 bct to T132 bct, the main changes include the size increased
> >to 10240 from 8704. The number of boot devices that can be specified in bct
> >is reduced from 4 to 1. And many new fileds are added to nvboot_sdram_params.
> >
> >v1: Initial changes
> >v2: Fix some minor issues found in v1
> >     Removed files src/t210/nvboot_config.h and src/t210/sdram_param.h
> >             that were added unintentionally in v1.
> >v3: Remove "deprecated" from help -t option help text.
> 
> I think this version looks fine. Barring any objections, I'll apply it Tue
> my time sometime.

I wasn't able to successfully dump a BCT using this series. I'm not sure
if that's actually caused by a bad BCT or by the patches not being
correct. Do we have canonical BCT sources somewhere for something like
Foster?

The problem I'm seeing is that bct_dump reports that the BCT contains 0
SDRAM sets, whereas I'm pretty sure I've used the same BCT to bootstrap
a device with tegrarcm, so it's got to have valid SDRAM sets defined. I
can dig deeper, but it'd be good to have a reference BCT source and
image to verify that converting to BCT and back to source actually is an
idempotent operation.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]