GW6304 u-boot openbsd

2019-03-23 Thread Jamie
Hi! Quite new to OpenBSD on ARM64 and, while I have a Gateworks newport GW6304 running Linux, I'm keen to get OpenBSD running on it and was hoping for a little nudge. Following INSTALL.arm64, I wrote the miniroot64.fs to a microSD card then added the vendor (cavium) dtb to the first partition but

Re: GW6304 u-boot openbsd

2019-03-23 Thread Patrick Wildt
We rely on U-Boot‘s EFI support. So if the GW‘s U-Boot supports the „bootefi“ command there‘s a chance, otherwise not. :) Von meinem iPhone gesendet > Am 23.03.2019 um 09:01 schrieb Jamie : > > Hi! > > Quite new to OpenBSD on ARM64 and, while I have a Gateworks newport > GW6304 running Linux,

Re: GW6304 u-boot openbsd

2019-03-23 Thread Jonathan Gray
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 07:01:44PM +1100, Jamie wrote: > Hi! > > Quite new to OpenBSD on ARM64 and, while I have a Gateworks newport > GW6304 running Linux, I'm keen to get OpenBSD running on it and was > hoping for a little nudge. > > Following INSTALL.arm64, I wrote the miniroot64.fs to a micro

Re: GW6304 u-boot openbsd

2019-03-23 Thread Jamie
On Sat, 2019-03-23 at 20:34 +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 07:01:44PM +1100, Jamie wrote: > > Hi! > > [ snipped ] > > GW6304-D2>fatload mmc 1:1 $loadaddr bsd.itb > > GW6304-D2>bootm $loadaddr > > ## Loading kernel from FIT Image at 0200 ... > >Using 'config@1' configu

Re: GW6304 u-boot openbsd

2019-03-23 Thread Mark Kettenis
> From: Jamie > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:04:44 +1100 > > On Sat, 2019-03-23 at 20:34 +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 07:01:44PM +1100, Jamie wrote: > > > Hi! > > > [ snipped ] > > > GW6304-D2>fatload mmc 1:1 $loadaddr bsd.itb > > > GW6304-D2>bootm $loadaddr > > > ## Loadi

Re: GW6304 u-boot openbsd

2019-03-23 Thread Jamie
On Sat, 2019-03-23 at 15:26 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: Jamie > > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 22:04:44 +1100 > > > > [snipped] > > > > Thanks both. As you may have guessed the current U-Boot on there > > doesn't support bootefi which is why I was looking at the other > > 'options'. Naively,