On Sat, Oct 16, 2010, John Rigby wrote:
> Unless I am mistaken the mmc init vs mmc rescan should not be an issue
> if the default env in u-boot is correct. As background, legacy mmc
> drivers need mmc init and new generic mmc drivers need mmc rescan. I
> agree that this change is annoying, howeve
Unless I am mistaken the mmc init vs mmc rescan should not be an issue
if the default env in u-boot is correct. As background, legacy mmc
drivers need mmc init and new generic mmc drivers need mmc rescan. I
agree that this change is annoying, however the difference can be
handled in the default e
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
[...]
> Honestly, we are still far away from a bootable system. Besides above
> two bug fixes, we have tot address the following things to get a
> bootable mx51evk headless.
Ah, OK --- looks like I may have misunderstood the status of imx5
Hi Dave,
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> There are still a couple of errors which stop correct installation of
> u-boot when using linaro-media-create --image_file.
>
I always use l-m-c with --mmc, never --image_file. Will have a try later.
> I still couldn't get a bootabl
Hi Shawn,
I tried your linaro-media-create changes ... I put them in this
branch:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dave-martin-arm/linaro-image-tools/mx51evk-fixes
There are still a couple of errors which stop correct installation of
u-boot when using linaro-media-create --image_file.
I still couldn
Hi Shawn,
I tried your linaro-media-create changes ... I put them in this
branch:
https://code.launchpad.net/~dave-martin-arm/linaro-image-tools/mx51evk-fixes
There are still a couple of errors which stop correct installation of
u-boot when using linaro-media-create --image_file.
I still couldn
On 14 October 2010 10:38, Loïc Minier wrote:
> So it means we have to track which platforms use which MMC init
> command; how ugly :-/ is there a way we could test for it?
Can't we just define this incompatibility as a bug in uboot and get
it fixed? :-)
-- PMM
_
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010, Shawn Guo wrote:
> Quote from https://bugs.launchpad.net/linaro-image-tools/+bug/659720:
> Actually, we do not need to add anything before the first "fatload".
> We set the bootcmd in boot.scr, and boot.scr itself is in mmc boot
> partition. We have to get mmc ready before doi
Thanks for the comment, Wolfgang.
Agreed that u-boot needs a patch to increase CONFIG_MAX_ARGS. But my
point is that it's not necessary to put "mmcinfo; mmc init;" in the
command, as I explained like below on the bug page. With that
removed, the current CONFIG_MAX_ARGS still fits.
Quote from ht
Dear Shawn Guo,
In message you
wrote:
> The l-m-c is broken for mx51evk due to the following two bugs. I
> posted the patches there. Please review the patches and
> pick them up if they are ok.
>
> The bootcmd setting for mx51evk in l-m-c exceeds max args
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/linaro-i
The l-m-c is broken for mx51evk due to the following two bugs. I
posted the patches there. Please review the patches and
pick them up if they are ok.
The bootcmd setting for mx51evk in l-m-c exceeds max args
https://bugs.launchpad.net/linaro-image-tools/+bug/659720
=== modified file 'linaro-med
11 matches
Mail list logo
