Dear Michael Kebe,
In message
you
wrote:
>
> > Is the "U-Boot code" the address CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_BASE should be set
> > to? If so, then both addresses are the same, is that ok?
>
> Thanks for the discussion about how to port a new board into U-Boot.
> But I think these questions are forgotten,
Dear Paul Gortmaker,
In message
you wrote:
>
> > ... or you can just snap in a JTAG debugger, connect GDB and throw some
> > break/watch points here and there ;-)
>
> And how exactly is a JTAG going to help him resolve compile time
> issues he's currently having? Sure, JTAG is nice for things
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 23:26, Michael Kebe wrote:
> Thanks, for the hint! There is TEXT_BASE = 0x60d0.
>
> Here is the output from a bootup of the old U-Boot:
>
> Stage-1 Bootloader Tue Aug 9 16:44:00 CST 2011
> Attempting to set PLLA to 750MHz ...
> plla_ctrl0 : 0x
Dear Paul Gortmaker,
In message
you wrote:
>
> > U-Boot 1.1.2 (Jun 24 2011 - 09:41:57)
...
> Everyone always feels that they need to do a big uprev in one
> giant step. That is not an insult in any way -- I've also done the
> same thing. But even if you get it compiled, are you ready to debug
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Michael Kebe wrote:
>> > Here is the output from a bootup of the old U-Boot:
>> [...]
>>
>> It isn't an answer to your specific problem, but it is a process that
>> will get you there by yourself, at your own
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Michael Kebe wrote:
> > Here is the output from a bootup of the old U-Boot:
> [...]
>
> > U-Boot 1.1.2 (Jun 24 2011 - 09:41:57)
>
> [...]
>
> > However even if I try to build with these addresses, the linking
>
> > crashes with even more assertion fails:
> Ev
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Michael Kebe wrote:
> Here is the output from a bootup of the old U-Boot:
[...]
>
> U-Boot 1.1.2 (Jun 24 2011 - 09:41:57)
[...]
>
> However even if I try to build with these addresses, the linking
> crashes with even more assertion fails:
Everyone always feel
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 23:13, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> No. As I mentioned, look for a config.mk file in the board directory,
> i. e. probably board/ox820/config.mk or similar. This should contain
> the definition of TEXT_BASE.
Thanks, for the hint! There is TEXT_BASE = 0x60d0.
Here is the ou
Dear Michael Kebe,
In message
you wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 21:01, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Check the old sources for a board specific config.mk file ...
>
> There is this in the old include/configs/ox820.h:
>
> #define STATIC_CS0_BASE_PA 0x4100
> #define CFG_NAND_BASE
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 21:01, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Check the old sources for a board specific config.mk file ...
There is this in the old include/configs/ox820.h:
#define STATIC_CS0_BASE_PA 0x4100
#define CFG_NAND_BASE STATIC_CS0_BASE_PA
Do you think that's the correct one?
Micha
Dear Michael Kebe,
In message
you wrote:
>
> CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE is still missing. There is no documentation on
> this. Any hints?
Check the old sources for a board specific config.mk file ...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zun
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 18:58, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> Try a known to be working (with current code) tool chain?
>
Dear Wolfgang,
I can built other boards with the same toolchain.
I think I know what I did wrong:
#define CONFIG_SYS_UBOOT_BASE -1
#define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE -1
To get the pre
Dear Michael Kebe,
In message
you wrote:
>
> When I am trying to build, I get this error from the linker (I also
> tried the toolchain which is included in the download from Medion):
...
> /home/michael/x-tools/arm-unknown-eabi/bin/arm-unknown-eabi-ld: BFD
> (crosstool-NG 1.13.2) 2.21.1 asserti
Hi,
I am trying to port support for a board from Oxford Semiconductor to
the current head of the git repository.
Medion released GPL Sources of their P89626 NAS [1].
In these sources there are using an old version 1.1.2 of U-Boot with
some modification a board from Oxford Semiconductor. The board
14 matches
Mail list logo
