simpleboot

simpleboot

[David H. Lynch Jr.]

    I am trying to decipher hot to use the simpleboot devicetree wrapper
and I am not grasping the process.

    I need an initramfs kernel, inside an elf wrapper.
    right now I get that pretty much for free.

    How do  ask for a simpleboot wrapper kernel ?
       It is a target for a makefile in arch/powerpc/boot how to I cause
that target to get invoked
      
    How does it choose the device tree to wrap ?

    How does it interact with things like initramfs ?




-- 
Dave Lynch                                          Pico Computing, Inc.
Software Development                                      Embedded Linux
717.627.3770      dhlii@picocomputing.net   http://www.picocomputing.com
fax: 1.253.369.9244                                 Cell: 1.717.587.7774
Tiny Mighty Machines

Re: simpleboot

[Grant Likely]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:34 PM, David H. Lynch Jr.
<dhlii@picocomputing.net> wrote:
>     I am trying to decipher hot to use the simpleboot devicetree wrapper
>  and I am not grasping the process.
>
>     I need an initramfs kernel, inside an elf wrapper.
>     right now I get that pretty much for free.
>
>     How do  ask for a simpleboot wrapper kernel ?
>        It is a target for a makefile in arch/powerpc/boot how to I cause
>  that target to get invoked
>
>     How does it choose the device tree to wrap ?
>
>     How does it interact with things like initramfs ?

make simpleImage.<boardname>
- or -
make simpleImage.initrd.<boardname>

The makefile will use arch/powerpc/boot/dts/<boardname>.dts for the device tree.

Cheers,
g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.

Re: simpleboot

[David H. Lynch Jr.]

Grant Likely wrote:
> make simpleImage.<boardname>
> - or -
> make simpleImage.initrd.<boardname>
>
> The makefile will use arch/powerpc/boot/dts/<boardname>.dts for the device tree.
    Thanks, I suspected most of that. But I have not see simpleboot in
Linus's tree yet,
    so I have to back port the patch from the paulus tree and that makes
it harder to just try it.

    I am correct in assuming that if I have my .config otherwise
properly setup for initramfs that
    it is going to merge the kernel, dts, and initramfs into a single
image ?

    and is initramfs the plain or initrd target the correct one for
initramfs ?


-- 
Dave Lynch                                          Pico Computing, Inc.
Software Development                                      Embedded Linux
717.627.3770      dhlii@picocomputing.net   http://www.picocomputing.com
fax: 1.253.369.9244                                 Cell: 1.717.587.7774
Tiny Mighty Machines

Re: simpleboot

[Grant Likely]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:43 PM, David H. Lynch Jr.
<dhlii@picocomputing.net> wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>  > make simpleImage.<boardname>
>  > - or -
>  > make simpleImage.initrd.<boardname>
>  >
>  > The makefile will use arch/powerpc/boot/dts/<boardname>.dts for the device tree.
>     Thanks, I suspected most of that. But I have not see simpleboot in
>  Linus's tree yet,
>     so I have to back port the patch from the paulus tree and that makes
>  it harder to just try it.
>
>     I am correct in assuming that if I have my .config otherwise
>  properly setup for initramfs that
>     it is going to merge the kernel, dts, and initramfs into a single
>  image ?

Yes, the dtb and ramdisk images are just put into the wrapper image.
There are no .config values that manipulate the wrapping operation.
>
>     and is initramfs the plain or initrd target the correct one for
> initramfs ?

Its whatever kind of image you pass it.

Cheers,
g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.

Re: simpleboot

[David H. Lynch Jr.]

Grant Likely wrote:
> Its whatever kind of image you pass it.
>
>   
The simpleboot stuff must have hit Linux's tree today.
I synced with it.
created an arch/powerpc/boot/dts/pico_e1x.dts that is probably fouled up
- but that is a problem for later.

did:
make -f Makefile ARCH=powerpc   CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux-uclibc-
simpleImage.pico_e1x

had to deal with a few different config options and then got:

make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.pico'
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `simpleImage.pico_e1x'.  Stop.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.pico'
make: *** [release] Error 2

So how does the top level Makefile know about  the simpeImage.% target
in  arch/powerpc/boot ?






-- 
Dave Lynch                                          Pico Computing, Inc.
Software Development                                      Embedded Linux
717.627.3770      dhlii@picocomputing.net   http://www.picocomputing.com
fax: 1.253.369.9244                                 Cell: 1.717.587.7774
Tiny Mighty Machines

Re: simpleboot

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 15:43 -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
> > make simpleImage.<boardname>
> > - or -
> > make simpleImage.initrd.<boardname>
> >
> > The makefile will use arch/powerpc/boot/dts/<boardname>.dts for the device tree.
>     Thanks, I suspected most of that. But I have not see simpleboot in
> Linus's tree yet,
>     so I have to back port the patch from the paulus tree and that makes
> it harder to just try it.

simpleboot is in Linus' tree now.  It went in with the first pull
request paulus sent for .26.

I don't understand that comment anyway though.  If you're working with a
PowerPC board, why aren't you using the powerpc tree (paulus') to begin
with?  "Backporting" pieces of it to some other tree seems to be a waste
of time to me...

josh

Re: simpleboot

[David H. Lynch Jr.]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> simpleboot is in Linus' tree now.  It went in with the first pull
> request paulus sent for .26.
>   
    I got it, now to figure it out.
> I don't understand that comment anyway though.  If you're working with a
> PowerPC board, why aren't you using the powerpc tree (paulus') to begin
> with?  "Backporting" pieces of it to some other tree seems to be a waste
> of time to me...
>   
    I am updating a port I did in 2005 ? based on the  ml403 port that
was in at that time.
    But it is an independent BSP. I need to move it to the current
powerpc/devicetree,
    but I have to do so without breaking alot of things we have have
working for years.

    At the moment I am somewhat "surely" about a number of the issues
related to the powerpc/devicetree migration.
    Aside from the BSP issues, this breaks my boot monitor, and is going
to require adding alot more code than I can either justify
    or see as necescary because there are some aspects of how the
devicetree/powerpc stuff is architected that
    politely I think are brain dead.

    But I will get over it - probably. There just may be a bit of
cursing and foul language before things work.

-- 
Dave Lynch                                          Pico Computing, Inc.
Software Development                                      Embedded Linux
717.627.3770      dhlii@picocomputing.net   http://www.picocomputing.com
fax: 1.253.369.9244                                 Cell: 1.717.587.7774
Tiny Mighty Machines

Re: simpleboot

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 22:02 -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > simpleboot is in Linus' tree now.  It went in with the first pull
> > request paulus sent for .26.
> >   
>     I got it, now to figure it out.
> > I don't understand that comment anyway though.  If you're working with a
> > PowerPC board, why aren't you using the powerpc tree (paulus') to begin
> > with?  "Backporting" pieces of it to some other tree seems to be a waste
> > of time to me...
> >   
>     I am updating a port I did in 2005 ? based on the  ml403 port that
> was in at that time.
>     But it is an independent BSP. I need to move it to the current
> powerpc/devicetree,
>     but I have to do so without breaking alot of things we have have
> working for years.

OK... and how does that dictate whether to use Linus' tree or paulus'
tree?  Both are going to contain roughly the same amount of changes,
with the exception that paulus' tree will have more of the PowerPC
commits in it, including the Xilinx ml403 stuff from Grant.

>     At the moment I am somewhat "surely" about a number of the issues
> related to the powerpc/devicetree migration.
>     Aside from the BSP issues, this breaks my boot monitor, and is going
> to require adding alot more code than I can either justify
>     or see as necescary because there are some aspects of how the
> devicetree/powerpc stuff is architected that
>     politely I think are brain dead.

I don't mind people calling it brain dead.  But if you were being
polite, you'd call it brain dead and then actually list the issues so
they could be discussed.  Others might benefit from that discussion.

josh