BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Steven Scholz]

Hi,

is the there any particular reason why the BOOT_TARGETS "pImage" and "uImage" for
the famous boot loader PPCBoot and its successor U-Boot are still not supported.
Neither by linux_2_4_devel. Nor by the vanilla.

Thanks,

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:16:29PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:

> is the there any particular reason why the BOOT_TARGETS "pImage" and
> "uImage" for
> the famous boot loader PPCBoot and its successor U-Boot are still not
> supported.
> Neither by linux_2_4_devel. Nor by the vanilla.

For a third time:
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/8358/2002/11/0/10241415/

It's not too late for 2.4.23, yet...

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Steven Scholz]

Tom Rini wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:16:29PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:
>
>
>>is the there any particular reason why the BOOT_TARGETS "pImage" and
>>"uImage" for
>>the famous boot loader PPCBoot and its successor U-Boot are still not
>>supported.
>>Neither by linux_2_4_devel. Nor by the vanilla.
>
>
> For a third time:
> http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/8358/2002/11/0/10241415/

I have to admit that I don't understand what you're describing there. I am afraid
nobody else did. Otherwise someone would realized it by now...

Sorry though.

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Brian Waite]

[-- Attachment #1: clearsigned data --]
[-- Type: Text/Plain, Size: 639 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Here  is the patch I have been using myself. I am embarrassed to say that I 
was the 2nd person to ask and I forgot to post the patch for inclusion. I 
don;t have a version for 2.5/6 but this works for 2.4 (based on 
2.4.22-pre10). Tom, I am not sure this is exactly what yoou wanted when we 
initially talked about it so let me know if you would like a better method.


Thanks
Brian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/abidmxLCz0u+Ko8RApSeAJ9FwwirTLp5lYIeoVwOs3olE11CDACeM7Zs
oiWo6RqxHhkLubrg8YbELqI=
=s7cT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: uboot.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 2982 bytes --]

# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux 2.4 for PowerPC development tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
#	           ChangeSet	1.1350  -> 1.1351
#	   arch/ppc/Makefile	1.57    -> 1.58
#	arch/ppc/boot/images/Makefile	1.6     -> 1.7
#	arch/ppc/boot/Makefile	1.49    -> 1.50
#	               (new)	        -> 1.1     scripts/mkuboot.sh
#
# The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log
# --------------------------------------------
# 03/08/07	waite@dayton.sky	1.1351
# U
# --------------------------------------------
#
diff -Nru a/arch/ppc/Makefile b/arch/ppc/Makefile
--- a/arch/ppc/Makefile	Thu Sep 18 09:45:53 2003
+++ b/arch/ppc/Makefile	Thu Sep 18 09:45:53 2003
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@
 checks:
 	@$(MAKE) -C arch/$(ARCH)/kernel checks

-BOOT_TARGETS = zImage zImage.initrd znetboot znetboot.initrd
+BOOT_TARGETS = zImage zImage.initrd znetboot znetboot.initrd uImage

 # All the instructions talk about "make bzImage".
 bzImage: zImage
diff -Nru a/arch/ppc/boot/Makefile b/arch/ppc/boot/Makefile
--- a/arch/ppc/boot/Makefile	Thu Sep 18 09:45:53 2003
+++ b/arch/ppc/boot/Makefile	Thu Sep 18 09:45:53 2003
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
 AFLAGS	+= -D__BOOTER__
 OBJCOPY_ARGS = -O elf32-powerpc

-MKIMAGE				:= ./utils/mkimage.wrapper
+MKIMAGE				:= $(TOPDIR)/scripts/mkuboot.sh

 lib/zlib.a: lib/zlib.c
 	$(MAKE) -C lib
@@ -67,12 +67,18 @@
 	gzip $(GZIP_FLAGS) images/vmapus
 endif

+mkuboot: $(MKIMAGE)
+	cp $< $@
+	chmod 755 $@
+
+
 # Make an image for PPCBoot
-pImage: images/vmlinux.gz
-	$(MKIMAGE) -A ppc -O linux -T kernel -C gzip -a 00000000 -e 00000000 \
+uImage: images/vmlinux.gz mkuboot
+	./mkuboot -A ppc -O linux -T kernel -C gzip -a 00000000 -e 00000000 \
 	-n 'Linux-$(VERSION).$(PATCHLEVEL).$(SUBLEVEL)$(EXTRAVERSION)' \
-	-d $< images/vmlinux.PPCBoot
-	ln -sf vmlinux.PPCBoot images/pImage
+	-d $< images/vmlinux.UBoot
+	ln -sf vmlinux.UBoot images/uImage
+	rm -f ./mkuboot

 # These are subdirs with files not normally rm'ed. -- Tom
 clean:
diff -Nru a/arch/ppc/boot/images/Makefile b/arch/ppc/boot/images/Makefile
--- a/arch/ppc/boot/images/Makefile	Thu Sep 18 09:45:53 2003
+++ b/arch/ppc/boot/images/Makefile	Thu Sep 18 09:45:53 2003
@@ -9,4 +9,4 @@
 	gzip -vf9 vmlinux

 clean:
-	rm -f sImage vmapus vmlinux* miboot* zImage* zvmlinux*
+	rm -f sImage vmapus vmlinux* miboot* zImage* zvmlinux* uImage
diff -Nru a/arch/ppc/boot/simple/Makefile b/arch/ppc/boot/simple/Makefile
diff -Nru a/scripts/mkuboot.sh b/scripts/mkuboot.sh
--- /dev/null	Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969
+++ b/scripts/mkuboot.sh	Thu Sep 18 09:45:53 2003
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+
+#
+# Build U-Boot image when `mkimage' tool is available.
+#
+
+MKIMAGE=$(type -path mkimage)
+
+if [ -z "${MKIMAGE}" ]; then
+	# Doesn't exist
+	echo '"mkimage" command not found - U-Boot images will not be built' >&2
+	exit 0;
+fi
+
+# Call "mkimage" to create U-Boot image
+${MKIMAGE} "$@"

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 09:52:29AM -0400, Brian Waite wrote:

> Here  is the patch I have been using myself. I am embarrassed to say that I
> was the 2nd person to ask and I forgot to post the patch for inclusion. I
> don;t have a version for 2.5/6 but this works for 2.4 (based on
> 2.4.22-pre10). Tom, I am not sure this is exactly what yoou wanted when we
> initially talked about it so let me know if you would like a better method.

That looks alright.  I've got one comment:
[snip]
> diff -Nru a/arch/ppc/boot/Makefile b/arch/ppc/boot/Makefile
> --- a/arch/ppc/boot/Makefile	Thu Sep 18 09:45:53 2003
> +++ b/arch/ppc/boot/Makefile	Thu Sep 18 09:45:53 2003
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
>  AFLAGS	+= -D__BOOTER__
>  OBJCOPY_ARGS = -O elf32-powerpc
>
> -MKIMAGE				:= ./utils/mkimage.wrapper
> +MKIMAGE				:= $(TOPDIR)/scripts/mkuboot.sh
>
>  lib/zlib.a: lib/zlib.c
>  	$(MAKE) -C lib
> @@ -67,12 +67,18 @@
>  	gzip $(GZIP_FLAGS) images/vmapus
>  endif
>
> +mkuboot: $(MKIMAGE)
> +	cp $< $@
> +	chmod 755 $@

Add this to the clean target, and then don't rm it at the end of
'uImage' so that we only 'build' this once.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:
> Tom Rini wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:16:29PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:
> >
> >
> >>is the there any particular reason why the BOOT_TARGETS "pImage" and
> >>"uImage" for
> >>the famous boot loader PPCBoot and its successor U-Boot are still not
> >>supported.
> >>Neither by linux_2_4_devel. Nor by the vanilla.
> >
> >
> >For a third time:
> >http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/8358/2002/11/0/10241415/
>
> I have to admit that I don't understand what you're describing there. I am
> afraid nobody else did. Otherwise someone would realized it by now...

If I'm making requests and rambling at the same time, can people please
speek up sooner?  I won't mind, really.

What I want is three things:
1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will
never run into a 'cannot execute' problem.  My suggestion is to have the
Makefile do a:
@chmod +x mkimage.sh
Or so.  In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you,
automagically, on .sh files I believe.  For 2.4, you must handle this
explicitly.
2) Do we really need 'pImage' and 'uImage' or can we just have 'uImage'
?
3) I really (really!) want a patch for 2.4 and 2.5/2.6 at the same time.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Brian Waite]

> What I want is three things:
> 1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will
> never run into a 'cannot execute' problem.  My suggestion is to have the
> Makefile do a:
> @chmod +x mkimage.sh
> Or so.  In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you,
> automagically, on .sh files I believe.  For 2.4, you must handle this
> explicitly.
Altough messy, I make this happen in the patch I supply. I can change it to do
the straight chmod in the scrip[ts directory if that is cleaner.

> 2) Do we really need 'pImage' and 'uImage' or can we just have 'uImage'
> ?
I think uImage is enough. Wolfgang strongly discourages any use of PPCBoot
these days and it just seems silly.
> 3) I really (really!) want a patch for 2.4 and 2.5/2.6 at the same time.
This was one of the reasons for not supplying the patch previously.
I will try to pull together a 2.5/2.6 patch but I have not worked under
2.5/2.6 at all. When I initially did the 2.4 patch I pulled the 2.5 tree but
I didn't have time to understand the layout. Also, unless someone has a board
that will boot a uImage target I can only supply an untested patch. I'll take
some time and see if I can pull something I am comfortable with in the next
few days. Is there anyone who could help with testing?

Thanks
Brian


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 02:22:28PM -0400, Brian Waite wrote:
> > What I want is three things:
> > 1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will
> > never run into a 'cannot execute' problem. My suggestion is to have
> > the Makefile do a:
> > @chmod +x mkimage.sh
> > Or so. In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you,
> > automagically, on .sh files I believe. For 2.4, you must handle this
> > explicitly.
>
> Altough messy, I make this happen in the patch I supply. I can change
> it to do the straight chmod in the scrip[ts directory if that is
> cleaner.

I think what your patch does is the 2.6 logic, so that's probably best.

> > 2) Do we really need 'pImage' and 'uImage' or can we just have
> > 'uImage' ?
>
> I think uImage is enough. Wolfgang strongly discourages any use of
> PPCBoot these days and it just seems silly.

That what I figured at this point.

> > 3) I really (really!) want a patch for 2.4 and 2.5/2.6 at the same
> > time.
>
> This was one of the reasons for not supplying the patch previously. I
> will try to pull together a 2.5/2.6 patch but I have not worked under
> 2.5/2.6 at all. When I initially did the 2.4 patch I pulled the 2.5
> tree but I didn't have time to understand the layout. Also, unless
> someone has a board that will boot a uImage target I can only supply
> an untested patch. I'll take some time and see if I can pull something
> I am comfortable with in the next few days. Is there anyone who could
> help with testing?

'Untested' is fine here, since all you have to do to test is have the
'uImage' target work.  A minimal config based on arch/ppc/defconfig
should suffice for this.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <200309181422.32546.waite@skycomputers.com> you wrote:
>
> I think uImage is enough. Wolfgang strongly discourages any use of PPCBoot
> these days and it just seems silly.

uImage should do.

Ummm... actually I only discourage the use of PPCBoot for development
of _new_ projects. Just using it on  existing  systems  is  perfectly
fine (I have some around and see no reason to update).

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

--
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
Never ascribe to malice that which can  adequately  be  explained  by
stupidity.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Sam Ravnborg]

> What I want is three things:
> 1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will
> never run into a 'cannot execute' problem.  My suggestion is to have the
> Makefile do a:
> @chmod +x mkimage.sh
> Or so.  In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you,
> automagically, on .sh files I believe.  For 2.4, you must handle this
> explicitly.

In 2.6 you need to locate the script in scripts/ and add it to the
makefile to make this happen. Do not do that.

Best way IMO is to use:
$(CONFIG_SHELL) mkimage.sh

This works in both 2.4 and 2.6.

> 2) Do we really need 'pImage' and 'uImage' or can we just have 'uImage'

Please kill pImage. PPCBOOT is dead, we shall focus on "Das U-boot".

	Sam

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 08:26:54PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > What I want is three things:
> > 1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will
> > never run into a 'cannot execute' problem. My suggestion is to have
> > the Makefile do a:
> > @chmod +x mkimage.sh
> > Or so. In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you,
> > automagically, on .sh files I believe. For 2.4, you must handle this
> > explicitly.
>
> In 2.6 you need to locate the script in scripts/ and add it to the
> makefile to make this happen. Do not do that.

There's an arguement for putting this in scripts/, and that is that
U-BOOT is not a PPC-specific bootrom anymore, as it looks like you well
know. :)

> Best way IMO is to use:
> $(CONFIG_SHELL) mkimage.sh

Brain, how about this for your patch for 2.4 at least (if we can't
convince Sam to put mkimage.sh into scripts/) :)

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:33:57AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > In 2.6 you need to locate the script in scripts/ and add it to the
> > makefile to make this happen. Do not do that.
>
> There's an arguement for putting this in scripts/, and that is that
> U-BOOT is not a PPC-specific bootrom anymore, as it looks like you well
> know. :)

You got me wrong (read: I did not express it clear).
What I do not wani't is to use scripts/Makefile to set the exucutable
bit. I'm perfectly fine with having the script in scripts/.

Actually thats the only suitable place, since it will be used by ARM
as well (I assume).

	Sam

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <20030918193835.GA2320@mars.ravnborg.org> you wrote:
>
> Actually thats the only suitable place, since it will be used by ARM
> as well (I assume).

Correct. And by MIPS. And some x86, too.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

--
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd@denx.de
Harrison's Postulate:
	For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/