I've been using an Arndale board. It needed a small bit of rework to
simplify power cycling the board, otherwise it's been quite good.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:14 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Fri Mar 29 12:20:27 EDT 2013, sstall...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I should probably mention, there is no
On Fri Mar 29 12:20:27 EDT 2013, sstall...@gmail.com wrote:
> I should probably mention, there is no need for much of a U-Boot script
> anymore. To boot with a uImage, my bootcmd is quite literally "tftpboot;
> bootm". Obviously we still have to do the same dance with plan9.ini, but I
> can live w
I should probably mention, there is no need for much of a U-Boot script
anymore. To boot with a uImage, my bootcmd is quite literally "tftpboot;
bootm". Obviously we still have to do the same dance with plan9.ini, but I
can live with that, though I do have some plans on how to deal with that
later.
U-Boot also performs relocation based on the load address which simplifies
the boot process. I'm working on an XIP kernel, which has cut around 100
LOC out of l.s. It's a small change, but simplifies things considerably.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> Unlike Elf, the format is trivial.
Not as trivial as raw binary, which we currently use for u-boot loading
on most ARMs. The uImage format contains the load and entry address so
you don't have to look up 'man 8 booting' or check the kernel mkfile before
setting up the u-boot script. Are there
On 29 March 2013 09:38, wrote:
> Popularity? U-boot seems very fond of uImage format, my guess is that
> it fits well within their line of expertise. I'm also interested in
> the opinion of those in the know.
>
Unlike Elf, the format is trivial.
>> which adds an option to
>> the loader to generate a uImage
>
> What's the advantage of using a uImage instead of elf or raw binary?
Popularity? U-boot seems very fond of uImage format, my guess is that
it fits well within their line of expertise. I'm also interested in
the opinion of those i
> which adds an option to
> the loader to generate a uImage
What's the advantage of using a uImage instead of elf or raw binary?
USB has been working quite well so far. The Arndale board has an onboard
ASIX, which has been working quite well for tftp booting kernel images.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:15 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > So far I believe the only real annoyance is lack of public documentation
> > for the Mali T6
> So far I believe the only real annoyance is lack of public documentation
> for the Mali T604, the synaptics touchpad, and of course dealing with the
> Marvell wireless part. These can all be dealt with down the road, hopefully
> by more willing individuals!
he! does that leave you land-locked,
'ish. Samsung's documents are somewhat rough, but enough to get a basic
debugging environment setup. I've recently added support to U-Boot for Plan
9 kernel images and submitted a patch (arm-uboot), which adds an option to
the loader to generate a uImage. Eventually I need to write everything up
so
> Hey Anthony,
>
> I'd be happy to sign up as a Mentor again this year. I haven't added this
> to the ideas page yet since I've been keeping the project mostly quiet, but
> I've been working on porting Plan 9 to the ARM Chromebook. It might not be
> the best project for a student since at the mome
Damn you Gmail. Damn you.
Hey Anthony,
I'd be happy to sign up as a Mentor again this year. I haven't added this
to the ideas page yet since I've been keeping the project mostly quiet, but
I've been working on porting Plan 9 to the ARM Chromebook. It might not be
the best project for a student since at the moment, it requi
Folks:
We're down to just about 24 hours remaining until org
applicaitons are due for Summer of Code 2013. After tomorrow
evening, the fine folks at Google will grab the application and
some key pages linked from it, such as the ideas page and
student application template, and begin evaluat
15 matches
Mail list logo
