From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:27:05 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mx53loco: Call PMIC related functions from
 board_late_init()
In-Reply-To: <50DC21CF.70409@denx.de>
References: <1356537020-31114-1-git-send-email-festevam@gmail.com>
	<50DC1E63.1000903@denx.de>
	<CAOMZO5DLQqujbhv-=dsVRPv_BdtRFLjrABw044_y7xCF_wtVaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<50DC21CF.70409@denx.de>
Message-ID: <20121227172705.5e534755@lilith>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Stefano,

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:24:15 +0100, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de>
wrote:
> On 27/12/2012 11:14, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > Hi Stefano,
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Fabio, hi Robert,
> >>
> >> the new pmic framework calls malloc(), that the reason. It is then safe
> >> to call the init from board_late_init().
> >>
> >> Tested-by: Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de>
> >>
> >> Applied to u-boot-imx, thanks.
> >>
> >> gcc 4.6.4, it boots always here.
> > 
> > Ok, great.
> > 
> > When you enter commands in the U-boot prompt, does it work fine?
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> > With
> > the toolchains that myself and Robert used we are seeing resets.
> > 
> > I would like to try the same gcc 4.6.4 toolchain you are using. Where
> > do you get it from?
> 
> It comes from ELDK-5.2.1
> 
> > 
> 
> I am playing a bit, I do not see your problem. I admit I have no idea
> which dialog version is on my board.
> 
> The only issue I can see is with MMC - I see with "fatls" any entry twice:
> 
> MX53LOCO U-Boot > fatls mmc 0:2
>         1   cmdline
>         1   cmdline
>    283472   u-boot.bin
>    283472   u-boot.bin
>    284496   u-boot.imx
>    284496   u-boot.imx
>   4093544   uimage
>   4093544   uimage
>    160291   uinitrd
>    160291   uinitrd
>       349   boot.txt
>       349   boot.txt
>       421   boot.scr
>       421   boot.scr
> 
> But this is surely another issue....

Re the double entries, did you check if these could be short / DOS (8.3)
names vs long names? IIRC, for compatibility, in a (V)FAT directory any
entry with a name longer than 8.3 has a matching short entry; maybe on
the device you're ls'ing, *any* entry has a short version?
 
> Best regards,
> Stefano Babic

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.