[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 0/8] omap-common: Common boot code OMAP3 support and SYS_BOOT-based fallback boot device

["Pali Rohár" <pali.rohar@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday 10 June 2015 12:58:11 Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> Le mercredi 10 juin 2015 ? 12:42 +0200, Pali Roh?r a ?crit :
> > On Wednesday 10 June 2015 12:34:39 Pali Roh?r wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 10 June 2015 11:54:00 Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > > Le mardi 09 juin 2015 ? 20:34 +0200, Pali Roh?r a ?crit :
> > > > > On Tuesday 09 June 2015 18:28:29 Pali Roh?r wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday 08 June 2015 23:24:18 Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > > > > > I would be very glad to see board maintainers give a go
> > > > > > > at the changeset before it gets merged, especially on devices like
> > > > > > > the Nokia RX-51 (N900) where some specific adaptation was needed.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So U-Boot is broken since e11c6c279d823dc0d2f470c5c2e3c0a9854a640f
> > > > > > (see other email thread). Until somebody fix that broken commit, I
> > > > > > cannot test your new patches in qemu or on (real) Nokia N900.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Now I tested this patch series on top of u-boot master with applied my 
> > > > > patch "Nokia RX-51: Fix calculating return address in save_boot_params".
> > > > >
> > > > > And it really as I thought broke booting U-Boot on Nokia N900 in qemu.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm confused here -- did you try booting on the actual device or in
> > > > qemu?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I tested your changes only in qemu. But because you removed (or better
> > > masked) required lowlevel asm code, it will not work on real n900 too.
> > > 
> > > > > So this patch series is NAK from my side.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for testing. Of course, the point is to make another version of
> > > > the patch set that fits the N900 too, since we really need to integrate
> > > > the omap3 to the common omap boot mechanism anyways.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Make sure that asm function in rx51 lowlevel asm file is called
> > > immediately from start.S. It is required. Basically no modification to
> > > that function should be needed (maybe just fixing return address in lr).
> 
> The problem is that this declaration conflicts with the one from
> omap-common's lowlevel_init.S. I understand that it is not needed for
> the RX-51 since it is not loaded by the U-Boot SPL or by the bootrom.
> 

Yes.

> Perhaps the best way to do things here would be to have a config option
> clearly stating that it should not expect the booting device information
> structure in r0. This situation is not specific to the RX-51 anyways.
> 

Sounds good.

> > > > I may be able to get my hands on a N900 in a short while.
> > > 
> > > Do you have n900 device? Or are you going to use qemu?
> > > 
> > > Really, for development u-boot for n900 is easier to use qemu as you can
> > > easier debug code...
> 
> I didin't know it was possible, perhaps I'll try it. I have a friend who
> owns a N900, I could certainly borrow it for a while to ensure that this
> patch set goes smoothly on it.
> 

Look at this email with information how to build u-boot and run in qemu:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-January/200171.html

> > > > If you're interested, you're welcome to look at the issue and suggest
> > > > what changes should be made to make the set compatible with the N900!
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Do not hide/mask/remove that required asm function. That should be all.
> 
> > And why is change to file board/nokia/rx51/lowlevel_init.S required?
> 
> See my comment above.
> 

-- 
Pali Roh?r
pali.rohar at gmail.com