[U-Boot] Uboot can't start kernel after change from version 2009.01 to 2010.09

Maik Hänig
2011-01-25T11:03:53Z

Dear Reinhard,

sorry I copied the wrong log:

U-Boot 2010.09 (Jan 24 2011 - 17:45:54)

I2C: ready
DRAM: 64 MiB
Flash: 32 MiB
In: serial
Out: serial
Err: serial
Hit any key to stop autoboot: 0
## Booting kernel from Legacy Image at 30060000 ...
Image Name: Linux Kernel
Image Type: ARM Linux Kernel Image (gzip compressed)
Data Size: 1084127 Bytes = 1 MiB
Load Address: 20008000
Entry Point: 20008000
Verifying Checksum ... OK
Uncompressing Kernel Image ... OK

Starting kernel ...

I have to kernel Images in flash. The bootcmd is copied from printenv.
With the uboot version 2009.01 it works well. Is it nessesary to set a
console parameter in the bootcmd in uboot version 2010.09?

Mit freundlichen Gr??en

Maik H?nig

Am 25.01.2011 11:54, schrieb Reinhard Meyer:
> Dear Maik H?nig,
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I change my uboot version and after it the uboot don't starts the same
>> linux kernel:
>>
>> ## Booting kernel from Legacy Image at 10060000 ...
> _________________________________________????????
>> Image Name: Linux Kernel
>> Image Type: ARM Linux Kernel Image (gzip compressed)
>> Data Size: 1178673 Bytes = 1.1 MiB
>> Load Address: 20008000
>> Entry Point: 20008000
>> Verifying Checksum ... OK
>> Uncompressing Kernel Image ... OK
>>
>> Starting kernel ...
>>
>> *****LOG END*****
>>
>>
>> It's a board simular to the at91rm9200dk. I start the kernel with
>>
>> bootcmd2=setenv bootargs root=/dev/mtdblock9 rootfstype=squashfs
>> ETHADDR=$(ethaddr) RUNNING=$(runningimage) CFGFS=mtdblock10;bootm 0x30060000
> ______________________________________________________________________????????
>>
>> run bootcmd2
>
> First, I don't understand why those two addresses are not the same.
>
> Then, are you sure your "bootcmd2" ist really what you think it is?
> Try a "printenv" and see whats really there.
>
> Should you not have a "console=xxx" in your kernel parameters?
>
> Besides once "Starting kernel ..." shows, u-boot is about to give control
> to the kernel, all future output would be from the kernel itself, probably
> needing a sane "console=xxx" parameter.
>
> Best Regards,
> Reinhard
>
>