[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Stefano Babic]

Rick Bronson wrote:
> Hi Sbabic,

Hi Rick,

> 
>   I have the u-boot from the freescale ltib tar ball but it doesn't
> seem to run too well.  I comes up but when I press any keys nothing
> happens.  Anyway, I was wondering if you have anything newer that I
> could try.

Please send your questions to u-boot ML. It is the right place where we
can exchange experience on u-boot.

>  BTW, I just blasted u-boot into the 1st part of the SD
> card and prayed:
> 
> 	sudo dd if=u-boot/u-boot.bin of=$(SD_CARD) bs=512 seek=0

If this is the u-boot you find in the ltib, the command could be
correct. It depends how u-boot is built.

The MX51 processor reads automatically the SD card starting from address
0x400. At this address, the processor must find the DCD table.
In the patches I sent, I follow another approach: u-boot is build
independently from the device where you will store the bootloader. You
have to generate u-boot.imx (with "make u-boot.imx"), that adds the DCD
table and then you must store it at the correct offset. On a SD card,
this means with:

	dd if=u-boot.imx of=$(SD_CARD) bs=512 seek=2

Do you try the patches I sent to the ML ? And which is the version of
your processor (TO1, TO2 or TO3) and of the board ?

Best regards,
Stefano Babic

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Rick Bronson]

Hi Stefano,

> Please send your questions to u-boot ML. It is the right place where we
> can exchange experience on u-boot.

  Okay.

> If this is the u-boot you find in the ltib, the command could be
> correct. It depends how u-boot is built.
> 
> The MX51 processor reads automatically the SD card starting from address
> 0x400. At this address, the processor must find the DCD table.
> In the patches I sent, I follow another approach: u-boot is build
> independently from the device where you will store the bootloader. You
> have to generate u-boot.imx (with "make u-boot.imx"), that adds the DCD
> table and then you must store it at the correct offset. On a SD card,
> this means with:
> 
> 	dd if=u-boot.imx of=$(SD_CARD) bs=512 seek=2

 Okay, thanks much for the info.

> Do you try the patches I sent to the ML ? And which is the version of
> your processor (TO1, TO2 or TO3) and of the board ?

  Not sure what patches these are or where to find them.  Also not
sure what source to apply these patches to.  Is it the latest on
denx.de or the ltib sources?  Not sure what rev of the processor I
have, my bootup log is here http://www.efn.org/~rick/pub/imx51.log
although  I don't see any T01, T02, etc printing.

  I gues it would be nice if there were some instructions for getting
up to date on the latest u-boot for the iMX51 eval board.  I'd be
happy to help put together a set.

  Thanks very much for the help.

  Rick

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Eric Bénard]

Hi Rick,

Le 26/01/2010 20:10, Rick Bronson a ?crit :
>> Do you try the patches I sent to the ML ? And which is the version of
>> your processor (TO1, TO2 or TO3) and of the board ?
>
>    Not sure what patches these are or where to find them.  Also not
> sure what source to apply these patches to.  Is it the latest on
> denx.de or the ltib sources?  Not sure what rev of the processor I
> have, my bootup log is here http://www.efn.org/~rick/pub/imx51.log
> although  I don't see any T01, T02, etc printing.
>
redboot says :
Platform: MX51 Babbage (Freescale i.MX51 based) PASS 3.0 [x32 DDR]. 
Board Rev 2.5

linux says :
CPU is i.MX51 Revision 3.0

So you seems  to have a recent Babbage board ;-)

Eric

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Stefano Babic]

Rick Bronson wrote:
>   Not sure what patches these are or where to find them.  Also not
> sure what source to apply these patches to.  Is it the latest on
> denx.de or the ltib sources?  Not sure what rev of the processor I
> have, my bootup log is here http://www.efn.org/~rick/pub/imx51.log
> although  I don't see any T01, T02, etc printing.

You do not find at the moment mx51 support on the u-boot mainline. I
sent my patches to u-boot ML with the goal to integrate the processor in
 u-boot and the patches are currently under review. If you want to give
theses patches a try, you have to apply them to the current u-boot tree.

> 
>   I gues it would be nice if there were some instructions for getting
> up to date on the latest u-boot for the iMX51 eval board.  I'd be
> happy to help put together a set.

Your starting point could be looking at
http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/SourceCode.

However, as I said, patches for the imx51 eval kit are not yet integrated.

Best regards,
Stefano Babic


-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Rick Bronson]

Hi Stefano,

> You do not find at the moment mx51 support on the u-boot mainline. I
> sent my patches to u-boot ML with the goal to integrate the processor in
>  u-boot and the patches are currently under review. If you want to give
> theses patches a try, you have to apply them to the current u-boot tree.

  Okay, thanks.  I'll give it a try.

  Are your patches the set of 9 that are on the ML?

  Rick

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Stefano Babic]

Rick Bronson wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 

Hi Rick,

>   Okay, thanks.  I'll give it a try.
> 
>   Are your patches the set of 9 that are on the ML?

At the moment, I have sent the third patchset to the ML. There are 11
patches for imx51.

Please give me some feedback. As Eric checks in the previous post, you
have a really new board with TO3 processor and I could test my patches
only on a TO2.

Regards,
Stefano Babic

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Rick Bronson]

Hi Stefano,

  With 

git clone git://git.denx.de/u-boot

  I get:

/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.1.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run ERROR
patching file Makefile
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R? [n] ^C
/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.2.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.3.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.4.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.5.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.6.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.7.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.8.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.9.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.10.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run ERROR
can't find file to patch at input line 5
Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff --git a/cpu/arm_cortexa8/mx51/Makefile b/cpu/arm_cortexa8/mx51/Makefile
|index 4d82293..7cfaa2c 100644
|--- a/cpu/arm_cortexa8/mx51/Makefile
|+++ b/cpu/arm_cortexa8/mx51/Makefile
--------------------------
/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.11.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run ERROR
patching file MAINTAINERS
Hunk #1 FAILED at 151.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file MAINTAINERS.rej
...

  Then with

git clone git://git.denx.de/u-boot-imx

   I get:

/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.1.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run ERROR
/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.2.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.3.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.4.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.5.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.6.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.7.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run FUZZ
/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.8.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.9.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run CLEAN
/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.10.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run ERROR
/u-boot-imx> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.11.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run ERROR

  Rick

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Stefano Babic]

Rick Bronson wrote:
> Hi Stefano,

> /u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.1.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run ERROR
> patching file Makefile
> Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R? [n] ^C

The first patch was already accepted and it is now part of the u-boot
main tree. You do not need to apply it.

> /u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.10.patch | patch -p1 --dry-run ERROR

You cannot expect that patch works if you runs the previous ones with
dry-run and the current patch modifies files already patched in the
previous ones.

Regards,
Stefano babic

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Rick Bronson]

> You cannot expect that patch works if you runs the previous ones with
> dry-run and the current patch modifies files already patched in the
> previous ones.

  Very true ;-)

  Number 10 still fails :(

/u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.10.patch | patch -p1
patching file cpu/arm_cortexa8/mx51/Makefile
patching file cpu/arm_cortexa8/mx51/speed.c
patching file drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
patching file include/asm-arm/global_data.h
patching file include/fsl_esdhc.h
Hunk #1 FAILED at 32.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/fsl_esdhc.h.rej
patching file lib_arm/board.c

  Rick

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Stefano Babic]

Rick Bronson wrote:
>> You cannot expect that patch works if you runs the previous ones with
>> dry-run and the current patch modifies files already patched in the
>> previous ones.
> 
>   Very true ;-)
> 
>   Number 10 still fails :(
> 
> /u-boot> cat ~/tlc/dqp1130/u-boot.imx51.10.patch | patch -p1
> patching file cpu/arm_cortexa8/mx51/Makefile
> patching file cpu/arm_cortexa8/mx51/speed.c
> patching file drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
> patching file include/asm-arm/global_data.h
> patching file include/fsl_esdhc.h
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 32.
> 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/fsl_esdhc.h.rej

You must take a look at the reason. However, I see a recent commit for
this file that changed SYSCTL_CLOCK_MASK, as I did, too. Because I
changed (in the same way) this mask, the patch cannot directly applied.
However, you can easy fix it adding the defines I needed.
There are still comments about using IO accessors function, so I will
rebase it before sending again).

Regards,
Stefano Babic

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Rick Bronson]

> You must take a look at the reason. However, I see a recent commit for
> this file that changed SYSCTL_CLOCK_MASK, as I did, too. Because I
> changed (in the same way) this mask, the patch cannot directly applied.
> However, you can easy fix it adding the defines I needed.
> There are still comments about using IO accessors function, so I will
> rebase it before sending again).

  Got it fixed, thanks,  Built it and ran it but the FEC seems
unhealthy:

MX51EVK U-Boot > dhcp                                                           
FEC_MXC: Autonegotiation timeout                                                
BOOTP broadcast 1               

  Maybe I can help you fix it?  Any ideas?

  Rick

[U-Boot] imx51 u-boot

[Rick Bronson]

Hi Stefano,

  Not sure if this will help, but here is my startup with

#define DEBUG

 in drivers/net/fec_mxc.c

http://www.efn.org/~rick/pub/minicom.cap

  Rick