[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 Friday 12 June 2015 13:32:56 Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> Le mercredi 10 juin 2015 ? 13:35 +0200, Pali Roh?r a ?crit :
> > 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 just sent out v3 that fixes n900 support the way I suggested. I was
> able to get my hands on the device and along with the patch you sent out
> earlier this week, everything seems to work fine.
> 

Hello,

have you also tested that "combined" image of u-boot and linux kernel
(in uImage format) is working fine? That u-boot can boot that "attached"
kernel image without problem.

Script for generating "combined" image from u-boot.bin and uImage kernel:
https://gitorious.org/u-boot-shr/u-boot/source/maemo:debian/u-boot-gen-combined

You can boot "attached" kernel via u-boot command "run attachboot".

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