[U-Boot-Users] Re: [uClinux-dev] [Announcement] U-Boot for Motorola M5272C3 and M5282EVB

[U-Boot-Users] Re: [uClinux-dev] [Announcement] U-Boot for Motorola M5272C3 and M5282EVB

[Bernhard Kuhn]

Hi Wolfgang!

Thanks for your time on reviewing the u-boot patch for
Coldfire - i can imagine it was quite a lot of work ...

I have to admit that the coldfire u-boot port was a
quick-hack intended as prototype that at least was
usefull for me :-)

Unforntunatly i'm not involved in any Coldfire related
development at the moment and pretty busy with other
projects, so i won't have the time right now to sort
out the issue you have discovered.

But i will at least try to provide some usefull
comments for each of the items listed below, so that
other Coldfire/u-boot users can start cleaning things
up, so that the patch will be free of any licencing
or technical issues. In this context, please feel
free to redistribute this mail to whomever you think
it might be usefull for.

One general note: the whole lot of "PPCisms" are deriving
from the fact that i copied and renamed several PPC
files from the u-boot tree and modified them until they
did the job.

Although certain files are even holding PPC assembly
instructions, or other obviously PPC related routines,
the bootloader will still compile and work (IMHO
pretty well) for the coldfire because the appropriate
code will not be compiled (ifdef'ed out) or is just
dead code in the resulting binary.



Wolfgang Denk wrote:
 >
 > OK, we will leave the "pre-bootloader" out of the U-Boot tree. Please
 > set up a FTP server or such where Coldfire users can get it from.

I guess the best place for doing so would be www.uclinux.org
(where i still have an account - not accessible at the moment,
but that's different story)


 > Please provide a doc/README.Coldfire which explains this procedure.

I will add appropriate notes to the existing coldfire specfic
installation instruction when the cleanups have been finished.


 > I am afraid your patch is far from being usable:

That's a question of definition! :-)

To be serious: as the file name of the patch indicates, it
was intended to be applied for u-boot-0.4.0. I didn't have
done anything on it since then ...


 > * "examples/syscall.S" does not exist any more; I omitted this part
 >   of the patch

Fine for me! i actually never tried to start anything als than linux :-)


 > * "include/asm-m68k/8xx_immap.h" does not make any sense to me - why
 >   do you copy a MPC8xx specific file to the "include/asm-m68k/"
 >   header tree? Omitted.

The situation is that the FEC is almost the same one as
used by MPC8xx, so the related structures and definitions
are pretty usefull in 8xx_immap.h. We could rename the
file to something like mcf5xxx_fec.h and throw out any
non-FEC related stuff (iirc, non of the other structures
and definitions are used). I guess the "most clean"
way would be to put the FEC driver into the "drivers"
subdirectory since the FEC actually became an archtecture
independend device. But doing so would probably imply
a lot of work, because it would probably break all MPC8xx[x]
implementations for quite some time.



 > * "include/asm-m68k/arch-coldfire/dummy.h" is effectively an empty
 >   file which is nowhere referenced. Omitted.

IIRC, the situation is that the Makefile (as taken from the
PPC tree) likes to create a link to a platform dependend
sub-directory. Unfortnualty, an empty sub-directoy does
not survive in a patch file and such won't be created when
applying the patch - then the Makefile will stop operation
because of a missing directory. I could have modified the
Makefile to not take care about different platforms, but
i thought that in near or far future, somebody may like to
port u-boot to other M68k(-like) architectures such as
Amiga, Mac or Cris, and it may be necessary to provide
architecture specific files. So at least the "structural"
requirements are met this way ...



 > * "include/asm-m68k/bitops.h" reads: "Bit string operations on the
 >   ppc" -- on the PPC??? Actually the file does contain PowerPC
 >   assembler instructions which will never work on M68K. Omitted.

Actually it does work, because the __INLINE definitions (containing
the ppc-assembly code) are not used: the "pure C" inlined prototypes
at the end of the file are used, instead. But true: this stuff
should be deleted to avoid confusions like this one.


 > * "include/asm-m68k/byteorder.h" contains more PowerPC assembler
 >   instructions which will never work on M68K. Omitted.

Same thing: most of the definitions are not activly used in
the coldfire port - needs cleanup to avoid confusion.


 > * "include/asm-m68k/cache.h" is another verbatim copy of a PowerPC
 >   file which makes no sense for M68K. Omitted.

dito


 > * "include/asm-m68k/io.h" is effectively an empty file - please
 >   verify that this is OK!

That's more or less ok: lot of the *.h files exist because
they are included by the ppc-derived *.c files and i wanted
to maintain the given structure as close as possible so that
it is possible to easily add related features if necessary.
That's the reason why lot of the header files seem to have
non-sense content, but u-boot for coldfire will still compile
and work. In the current case, inb()/outb() do not need to be
defined simply because all register accesses are directly memory
referenced for coldfire (*(volatile ...)).


 > * "include/asm-m68k/m5272.h" and "include/asm-m68k/m5282.h" contain this:
 > 	(C) Copyright 2001, Key Technology (http://www.keyww.com)
 >   To become part of U-Boot these files must be available under GPL.
 >   If you can guarantee that we may use these files under GPL please fix
 >   the file headers.

Interessting thing! I'm glad that you stumbled of this
issue: i have copied over the m5272.h file from the COLILO
("coldfire linux loader" which is the pre-bootloader for
M5272C3). COLILO is distributed under the terms of the
GPL, so i didn't took too much care about the file headers.
We might check if a newer release of COLILO has a GPLed
header in this file. Otherwise we need to check (together
with the author of COLILO) back with the current copyright
holder. The m5282.h is just a copy of the m5272.h file
with the approprate changes for 5282 (changes done by me).


 > * "include/asm-m68k/mcftimer.h" and "include/asm-m68k/mcfuart.h"
 >   contain this:
 > 	(C) Copyright 1999-2002, Greg Ungerer (gerg at snapgear.com)
 > 	(C) Copyright 2000, Lineo Inc. (www.lineo.com)
 >   To become part of U-Boot these files must be available under GPL.
 >   If you can guarantee that we may use these files under GPL please fix
 >   the file headers.

This is a similar issue: that file was taken from the
uClinux kernel source tree from include/asm-m68knommu/mcfuart.h,
and guess what: even the latest release of the kernel
"linux-2.6.0-test11" still holds that header!! (somebody
should inform the LKML) - it should be easy to sort out that
issue, i guess, unless the companies that bought snapgear and
lineo are trying to go the SCO way :-)


 > * "include/asm-m68k/mmu.h" contains (as a comment says): "PowerPC
 >   memory management structures" which makes no sense for M68K.
 >   Omitted.

True, but just as like as for the other files: maybe somebody
may like to port u-boot for MMU-full Amigas (BTW.: there is
an MMU-full coldfire coming, soon). Then at least we are
using a defined "infrastructure". But certainly agreed: we
need to get rid of any "PPCisms" in these files. The files
could IMHO stay, even if empty, who cares?


 > * "include/asm-m68k/processor.h" is a PowerPC file which makes no
 >   sense for M68K. Omitted.

dito


 > * "include/configs/M5272C3.h" and "include/configs/M5282EVB.h"
 >   contain neither a copyright notice nor a GPL header.
 >   Pleae fix.


M5272C3.h is IIRC a copy of TQM860L.h, so it should
actually include your standard header with a minor
modification:

/*
  * (C) Copyright 2000, 2001, 2002
  * Wolfgang Denk, DENX Software Engineering, wd at denx.de.
  * Coldfire support contributed by Bernhard Kuhn, bkuhn at metrowerks.com
  *
  * See file CREDITS for list of people who contributed to this
  * project.
  *
  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
  * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
  * published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
  * the License, or (at your option) any later version.
  *
  * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
  * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
  * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
  * GNU General Public License for more details.
  *
  * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
  * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
  * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston,
  * MA 02111-1307 USA
  */



The same header can be applied to M5282EVB.h since it is
derived from M5272C3.h


 > * "lib_m68k/cache.c" is effectively an empty file. Omitted.

same "structural maintainance idea" as for certain *.h files ...


 > * "lib_m68k/config.mk" defines "-D__linux__ -D__uClinux__", but  both
 >   is most probably wrong for U-Boot. Omitted.

I'm not sure about that: some of the header files
are simply copied over from the uClinux kernel (such
as mcfuart.h) and iirc, these files need these definitions
in order to be compilable. But true, for a clean solution
this issue should be fixed in the appropriate files, rather
than applying this quick-hack.


 > * "lib_m68k/ctype.c" contains the same cose as already present in
 >   "lib_generic/ctype.c". Omitted.

Then we should use the generic one, right? :-)


 > * "lib_m68k/kgdb.c" is a PowerPC file which makes no sense for
 >   M68K. Omitted.

Again, copied over from the ppc tree at the beginning of
the development and doesn't provide any usefull functionality
at the moment, except for being a place-holder for future use.


 > * "lib_m68k/ldiv.c" contains the same cose as already present in
 >   "lib_generic/ldiv.c". Omitted.
 > * "lib_m68k/Makefile" needs major cleanup (see above). Omitted.
 > * "lib_m68k/ticks.S" is a PowerPC file which makes no sense for M68K.
 >   Omitted.

Ok, needs cleanup.

 > * "lib_m68k/time.c" contains a dummy implementation of
 >   init_timebase() [which probably makes no sense on M68K at all] -
 >   please verify that this is OK!

We can probably delete it, unless this function may be
usefull for other m68k-ports (which i don't know)


 > * All files in the "utils/coldfire/M5272C3/bdm/" directory are either
 >   missing a copyright notice and a GPL header, or they contain 
proprietary
 >   copyright notices. Omitted.

We can make this files part of the pre-loader distribution(s),
or seperate them otherwise - these files are not vital for
the compilation process.


 > * "cpu/coldfire/cpu_init.c" contains verbatim copy of a MPC8xx
 >   specific file which makes no sense for M68K. Omitted.

IIRC, only cpu_init_r() is called.


 > * "cpu/coldfire/fec.h" is effectively an empty file - please
 >   verify that this is OK!

the actual fec register defintions are in 8xx_immap.h


 > * "cpu/coldfire/interrupts.c" fails to implement
 >   irq_install_handler() / irq_free_handler() / enable_interrupts()
 >   and disable_interrupts() [and probably more] functions - please
 >   verify that this is OK!

The current implementation of u-boot for coldfire is not
using any interrupts. Status registers are pooled.


 > * "cpu/coldfire/kgdb.S" is a verbatim copy of a MPC8xx specific file
 >   which makes no sense for M68K. Omitted.
 > * "cpu/coldfire/kgdb.c" is broken / missing. Omitted.


again, legacy code :-) needs cleanup.


 > * "cpu/coldfire/speed.c" contains only dummy definitions for critical
 >   functions get_gclk_freq() and get_bus_freq() - please verify that
 >   this is OK!

To my knowladge, for the EVBs, these frequencies can only be
altered by changing the crystals, so it's probably ok to
not taking care about core and bus frequency for now.


 > I have added the remaining stuff which is  obviously  not  usable  in
 > this form. Please help to clean up and add the missing parts.

As indicated above: i can't afford to spend time on the cleanup work,
right now, sorry. However, if somebody is volunteering to do the
necessary cleanups, then i will try to assist her or him as good
as possible.

best regards

Bernhard

[U-Boot-Users] Re: U-Boot for Motorola M5272C3 and M5282EVB

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Bernhard,

in message <3FD4EE66.6080301@metrowerks.com> you wrote:
> 
> I have to admit that the coldfire u-boot port was a
> quick-hack intended as prototype that at least was
> usefull for me :-)

This is exactly what I though when I saw the code ;-)

> Unforntunatly i'm not involved in any Coldfire related
> development at the moment and pretty busy with other
> projects, so i won't have the time right now to sort
> out the issue you have discovered.

Understood.

> But i will at least try to provide some usefull
> comments for each of the items listed below, so that
> other Coldfire/u-boot users can start cleaning things
> up, so that the patch will be free of any licencing
> or technical issues. In this context, please feel
> free to redistribute this mail to whomever you think
> it might be usefull for.

I re-sent it to the U-Boot-Users mailing list so others interested in
this stuff can pick up from what we have now.

> Although certain files are even holding PPC assembly
> instructions, or other obviously PPC related routines,
> the bootloader will still compile and work (IMHO
> pretty well) for the coldfire because the appropriate
> code will not be compiled (ifdef'ed out) or is just
> dead code in the resulting binary.

This is what I imageined, but the code init's current form is a mess.
It needs to be cleaned up before I'm willing to check it in.

>  > Please provide a doc/README.Coldfire which explains this procedure.
> 
> I will add appropriate notes to the existing coldfire specfic
> installation instruction when the cleanups have been finished.

Thanks.

> To be serious: as the file name of the patch indicates, it
> was intended to be applied for u-boot-0.4.0. I didn't have
> done anything on it since then ...

Well, actually there is very little difference between applying  your
patch to U-Boot 0.4.0 or 1.1.0 ...

...

> As indicated above: i can't afford to spend time on the cleanup work,
> right now, sorry. However, if somebody is volunteering to do the
> necessary cleanups, then i will try to assist her or him as good
> as possible.

OK, so we're looking for a volunteer to cleanup the  open  issies  of
the Coldfire port now.


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the  precipi-
tate.

[U-Boot-Users] BUBINGA405EP Platform

[Bruce Boettjer]

It's me, again...

I have a bubinga 405 reference platform, and it behaves very well with the
PROM from IBM, but I am unable to get u-boot running on it.

It takes an exception to either 0700 or 0200 after executing very early in
the bootloader.  The ppc405ep_init function just starts, and actually causes
a machine exception on the 5th assy line... andi. R6,r5,8  which looks
completely valid to me...  At this point in the game, icache and dcache have
been invalidated, and not much else has been done.

If someone has worked with the RISCwatch on this board, would you please
send me your startup.cmd file?

Any ideas would be welcome... 

Regards,
 
Bruce Boettjer
Sr Hardware Design Engineer
Momentum Computer
1815 Aston Ave
Suite 107
Carlsbad, CA  92008
(760)-431-8663

[U-Boot-Users] BUBINGA405EP Platform

[Stefan Roese]

Bruce,

> It's me, again...
> 
> I have a bubinga 405 reference platform, and it behaves very 
> well with the PROM from IBM, but I am unable to get u-boot 
> running on it.

The BUBINGA port from the current cvs is buggy right now. I have a patch
for the working BUBINGA port (from Bill Hargen) in my queue! Hopefully
will be commited this week. Sorry for the delay...

Best regards,
Stefan.

[U-Boot-Users] BUBINGA405EP Platform

[Bruce Boettjer]

Stefan,

I know you're pretty busy, but could you please approximate when the BUBINGA
patch will be published?

TIA

Regards,
 
Bruce Boettjer
Sr Hardware Design Engineer
Momentum Computer
1815 Aston Ave
Suite 107
Carlsbad, CA  92008
(760)-431-8663

-----Original Message-----
From: u-boot-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:u-boot-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Stefan Roese
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:34 AM
To: 'Bruce Boettjer'; u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [U-Boot-Users] BUBINGA405EP Platform

Bruce,

> It's me, again...
> 
> I have a bubinga 405 reference platform, and it behaves very 
> well with the PROM from IBM, but I am unable to get u-boot 
> running on it.

The BUBINGA port from the current cvs is buggy right now. I have a patch
for the working BUBINGA port (from Bill Hargen) in my queue! Hopefully
will be commited this week. Sorry for the delay...

Best regards,
Stefan.



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click
_______________________________________________
U-Boot-Users mailing list
U-Boot-Users at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users

[U-Boot-Users] BUBINGA405EP Platform

[Stefan Roese]

Bruce,

> I know you're pretty busy, but could you please approximate 
> when the BUBINGA patch will be published?

This one is easy... Already done! ;-)

Please give it a try and let me know if everything is ok.

Best regards,
Stefan.

> 
> TIA
> 
> Regards,
>  
> Bruce Boettjer
> Sr Hardware Design Engineer
> Momentum Computer
> 1815 Aston Ave
> Suite 107
> Carlsbad, CA  92008
> (760)-431-8663
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: u-boot-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net
> [mailto:u-boot-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf 
> Of Stefan Roese
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:34 AM
> To: 'Bruce Boettjer'; u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: RE: [U-Boot-Users] BUBINGA405EP Platform
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> > It's me, again...
> > 
> > I have a bubinga 405 reference platform, and it behaves very
> > well with the PROM from IBM, but I am unable to get u-boot 
> > running on it.
> 
> The BUBINGA port from the current cvs is buggy right now. I 
> have a patch for the working BUBINGA port (from Bill Hargen) 
> in my queue! Hopefully will be commited this week. Sorry for 
> the delay...
> 
> Best regards,
> Stefan.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
> Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign 
> up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the 
> bash shell to sys admin. Click now! 
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371> &op=click
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> U-Boot-Users mailing list
> U-Boot-Users at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
> Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign 
> up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the 
> bash shell to sys admin. Click now! 
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371> &op=click
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> U-Boot-Users mailing list
> U-Boot-Users at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
> 
> 

[U-Boot-Users] Re: [uClinux-dev] [Announcement] U-Boot for Motorola M5272C3 and M5282EVB

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Bernhard,

in message <3FC7B02C.6070007@metrowerks.com> you wrote:
> 
> I have attached the main patch plus two additional patches. Please
> note that you can't use the 5282 stuff at the moment, because there
> may be some licensing issues: the initialisation "templates" have been
> downloaded from the offical Motorola website and slightly adopted
> in order to be usable as u-boot pre-loader. The files didn't came
> along with a copyright notice, so i thought it's probably ok
> to use them "as is", but it seems that there may be some common
> "Motorola software license agreement" that excludes the code to
> be used in GPL environemt - means: no u-boot for 5282 for now, sorry!
> You may use it anyhow, but then you need do it on your own legal
> risk! M5272C3 is ok concerning licensing/copyrights.

As discussed before, this means I will not be able to merge your work
into the public U-Boot source tree. This is a pity because  (1)  this
stuff  is  interesting for a couple of people and (2) this means that
the patches will be obsolete soon as the U-Boot sources change.

> BTW: Richard, Wolfgang doesn't like the dual-stage boot variant
> i have introduced for the Coldfire (with compressed u-boot in flash).
> This scheme was adopted for the AT91RM9200, btw., but in this case,
> the pre-bootloader is not included in the u-boot tarball (or CVS tree).
> We could apply the same method for Coldfire as well, means the
> pre-bootloader needs to be downloaded and compiled seperatly. This would

As discussed before, such a design  is  really  breaking  very  basic
design  principles  of  U-Boot.  If  not  dictated  by  some (stupid)
hardware it is not acceptable to me.

> also sort out the potential licensing issue for the 5282 decribed
> above, as well, since the pre-bootloader is actually not linked with
> u-boot: the pre-bootloader and the compressed u-boot are just
> concaternated into the same file (and could be flashed seperatly).

Will anybody implement such a cleanup? Bernhard? Richard?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
Of all possible committee reactions to any  given  agenda  item,  the
reaction  that will occur is the one which will liberate the greatest
amount of hot air.                                -- Thomas L. Martin

[U-Boot-Users] Re: [uClinux-dev] [Announcement] U-Boot for Motorola M5272C3 and M5282EVB

[Bernhard Kuhn]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:

>>We could apply the same method for Coldfire as well, means the
>>pre-bootloader needs to be downloaded and compiled seperatly. This would
> 
> As discussed before, such a design  is  really  breaking  very  basic
> design  principles  of  U-Boot.

True, U-Boot is then not the "real" bootloader but just an "application"
that is decompressed from flash to ram through the pre-bootloader,
keeping pre-bootloader + variables + compressed u-boot typically below
64 KiB of flash. In low memory environments, such as the the M5272C3
EVB or the AT75C221-DK with only 2 MiB of flash, it makes a
difference if the bootloader takes 128 KiB or only 64 KiB, but YMMV :-)



>>also sort out the potential licensing issue for the 5282 decribed
>>above, as well, since the pre-bootloader is actually not linked with
>>u-boot: the pre-bootloader and the compressed u-boot are just
>>concaternated into the same file (and could be flashed seperatly).
> 
> 
> Will anybody implement such a cleanup? Bernhard? Richard?

That's actually ease: the pre-bootloaders are placed in the
"pre" directory and compiled seperatly from u-boot. Means:
after deleting the "pre" directory, u-boot will still build
for coldfire and is independendly flashable from the
pre-bootloader. Without the "pre" directory, the rest of the
coldfire patch looks pretty much the same way it was done for
other architectures - in fact i started with some ppc directories
and renamed/modified the files until it worked out. The resulting
u-boot images btw. will work "stand alone" (without pre-bootloader)
when being downloaded to ram through a JTAG debugger such as the
BDI 2000.

best regards

Bernhard