Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support

Hi Tiger, On 12 February 2014 07:38, wrote: > Hi, Bhupesh: > I described my steps: > 1. Compiled ATF >Export CROSS_COMPILE=/home/lion/ > gcc-linaro-aarch64/bin/aarch64-linux-gnu- >make DEBUG=1 V=1 >make DEBUG=1 PLAT=fvp all dump > >Note: >I used linaro released aarch64 compi

Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support

Hi, Inder: >aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-marm' >aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mno-thumb-interwork' >aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-mabi=aapcs-linux' >aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized

Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support

On 12 February 2014 13:32, wrote: > Hi, Inder: > > >aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-marm' > >aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option > '-mno-thumb-interwork' > >aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command line option > '-mabi=aapc

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fix address of error message in mtest command

From: David Feng This patch deal with error message of mtest command. When test failed, the mtest command will output error information that include memory address and value. But the address field is not correct or misleading. Signed-off-by: David Feng --- common/cmd_mem.c | 14 +

Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support

Hi, Inder: >Could it be a toolchain issue? I used the linaro toochain gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.8-2014.01_linux.tar.xz at [1]. Maybe I use gcc-linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu-4.

Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support

Hi Inder, Could you please check the output of: $ echo $ARCH if it set to some values, unset it using: $ unset ARCH Regards, Bhupesh From: tiger...@viatech.com.cn [mailto:tiger...@viatech.com.cn] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:44 PM To: inderpal.si...@linaro.org Cc: Sharma Bhupesh-B4537

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 07/13] ARM: HYP/non-sec: allow relocation to secure RAM

Hi Albert, On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:47:31 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Marc, > > On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 11:19:12 +, Marc Zyngier > wrote: > > > The current non-sec switching code suffers from one major issue: > > it cannot run in secure RAM, as a large part of u-boot still needs > > to be

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] arm: ep9315: Return back Cirrus Logic EDB9315A board support

Hi sergey.kostanbaev, On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:48:32 +0400, "sergey.kostanbaev" wrote: > From: Sergey Kostanbaev > > This patch returns back support for old ep93xx processors family > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Kostanbaev > Cc: albert.u.b...@aribaud.net > --- > Changes for v3: > - Update make

Re: [U-Boot] how to get u-boot code with arm64: core support

Hi Bhupesh, On 12 February 2014 13:55, bhupesh.sha...@freescale.com < bhupesh.sha...@freescale.com> wrote: > Hi Inder, > > > > Could you please check the output of: > > > > $ echo $ARCH > I checked, it gives aarch64. Anyway if I don't set ARCH properly, the make command fails saying "Failed:

Re: [U-Boot] MAKEALL

Hi Simon, On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:54:47 -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi York, > > > On 4 January 2014 02:21, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > Dear York, > > > > In message <52c7424a.4090...@freescale.com> you wrote: > > > > > > I have some troubles to run MAKEALL with BUILD_NBUILDS. If I set > > BUIL

Re: [U-Boot] Chain loading an u-boot from an u-boot

Hi Stefano, Hi Helmut, I understand the first two points, but why do you store the kernel again with 1bit HW-ECC ? The second U-Boot is able to check with 4bit BCH and your NAND requires 4bit. This is mainly due to performance requirements. Using 4bit BCH increases overhead and makes DMA (cur

Re: [U-Boot] Chain loading an u-boot from an u-boot

Hi Helmut, On 12/02/2014 10:56, Helmut Raiger wrote: > This is mainly due to performance requirements. Using 4bit BCH > increases overhead and makes DMA (currently not used in the > kernel driver) a lot slower. We thought we might slip through with > 1bit HW-ECC, but we will test this (hopefully n

Re: [U-Boot] MAKEALL

Hi Albert, > > It might also be worth looking at tools/buildman, which automatically > > allocates one build thread per CPU. > > Jumping in late, but my question is incidental and not urgent anyway. > > Would using buildman make the multiple build / multiple CPU code in > MAKEALL useless? I'm w

Re: [U-Boot] Chain loading an u-boot from an u-boot

Hi Helmut, On 02/12/2014 10:56 AM, Helmut Raiger wrote: >> I understand the first two points, but why do you store the kernel again >> with 1bit HW-ECC ? The second U-Boot is able to check with 4bit BCH and >> your NAND requires 4bit. > > This is mainly due to performance requirements. Using 4bit

[U-Boot] Secure booting

Can anybody inform me why u-boot 2013 does not support secure booting? Basically what are the differences between u-boot2009.08 and u-boot2013 related to secure boot feature? What changes are required to develop secure booting in u-boot 2013? Thanks in Advance! ___

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/11] Change some boards to use zImage in default environment

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 03:16:51 PM, Stefano Babic wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 11/02/2014 14:15, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Thursday, January 16, 2014 at 11:14:44 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > >> Dear Otavio Salvador, > >> > >> In message <1389909486-12880-1-git-send-email-ota...@ossystems.com

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/7] fdt: add "fdt sign" command

On Monday, February 10, 2014 at 07:15:09 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: > Hello Marek, > > Am 08.02.2014 15:09, schrieb Marek Vasut: > > On Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 07:44:24 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: > >> check if a fdt is correct signed > >> pass an optional addr value. Contains the addr of the k

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 6/7] tools, fit: add fit_info host command

On Monday, February 10, 2014 at 07:28:51 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: > Hello Marek, > > Am 08.02.2014 15:16, schrieb Marek Vasut: > > On Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 07:44:28 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: > >> add fit_info command to the host tools. This command prints > >> the name, offset and the len

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] fit: Add support for SHA256 hash

On Monday, February 10, 2014 at 07:35:44 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: > Hello Marek, > > Am 08.02.2014 15:18, schrieb Marek Vasut: > > On Thursday, February 06, 2014 at 06:19:11 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: > >> Hello Marek, > >> > >> Am 06.02.2014 04:47, schrieb Marek Vasut: > >>> This patch adds supp

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 07/13] ARM: HYP/non-sec: allow relocation to secure RAM

On 12/02/14 08:36, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Albert, > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:47:31 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD > wrote: > >> Hi Marc, >> >> On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 11:19:12 +, Marc Zyngier >> wrote: >> >>> The current non-sec switching code suffers from one major issue: >>> it cannot run in secur

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 1/2] mtd: nand: omap: fix ecclayout->oobfree->offset

Hi Brian, >From: Brian Norris [mailto:computersforpe...@gmail.com] >>On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 02:42:57PM +0530, Pekon Gupta wrote: >> This patch updates starting offset for free bytes in OOB which can be used by >> file-systems to store their metadata (like clean-marker in case of JFFS2). > >This s

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH imx6dl] Enable SION Bit for GPIO16 when ALT2 mode is selected

Hi Andy, On 12/02/2014 12:53, Andy Ng wrote: > HI > > I was away the last few days. > > Shall I produce a patch for the u-boot git main line code with that fix? Yes, please add your signed-off-by and rebase it on top of u-boot-imx. Thanks, Stefano Babic -- =

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH imx6dl] Enable SION Bit for GPIO16 when ALT2 mode is selected

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Stefano Babic wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 12/02/2014 12:53, Andy Ng wrote: >> HI >> >> I was away the last few days. >> >> Shall I produce a patch for the u-boot git main line code with that fix? > > > Yes, please add your signed-off-by and rebase it on top of u-boot-

Re: [U-Boot] [U-Boot:RESEND][[PATCH 6/7] k2hk: add support for k2hk SOC and EVM

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/10/2014 08:44 PM, Vitaly Andrianov wrote: > On 02/10/2014 04:25 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 06:23:13PM -0500, Murali Karicheri wrote: >> >>> k2hk EVM is based on Texas Instruments Keystone2 Hawking/Kepler >>> SoC. Keystone2 SoC

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH imx6dl] Enable SION Bit for GPIO16 when ALT2 mode is selected

>From 45da8256deadb5c5cf38311ed5470e4ba5b20570 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andy Ng Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:40:47 + Subject: [PATCH] SION bit has to be on for the pins that are used as ENET_REF_CLK Signed-off-by: Andy Ng --- arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6dl_pins.h |6 +++--- 1 fi

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/11] Change some boards to use zImage in default environment

Hi Marek, On 12/02/2014 08:49, Marek Vasut wrote: >> >> Anyway, I think the discussion is a bit away from which is the best >> image. IMHO the board maintainer can decide which is the more suitable >> default environment he needs > > So, do we now accept new built-in environment changes again?

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH imx6dl] Enable SION Bit for GPIO16 when ALT2 mode is selected

Hello Andy, On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Andy Ng wrote: > From 45da8256deadb5c5cf38311ed5470e4ba5b20570 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Andy Ng > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:40:47 + > Subject: [PATCH] SION bit has to be on for the pins that are used as > ENET_REF_CLK > > Signed-off-by: A

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/2] boards.cfg: Delete the equivalent entries

Hi Masahiro, On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:09:29 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > There are some entries which produce the same binaries: > - ep8248E is equivalent to ep8248 > - MPC8360ERDK_66is equivalent to MPC8360ERDK > - Adder87x/AdderUSB is equivalent to Adder > - EVB64260_750CX

Re: [U-Boot] Question about Coding-Style

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > Plus, horizontal scrolling is still a pain[1], and excessively long > lines can be harder to read even if they fit on the screen (this is why > newspapers and other documents often format text in columns). > > -Scott > > [1] I'm looking at you,

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH imx6dl] Enable SION Bit for GPIO16 when ALT2 mode is selected

Shall I apply SION bit on imx6Q files too and bring all the changes under a single patch? Or there is problem with the existing one? Best regards A On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Andy Ng wrote: > From 45da8256deadb5c5cf38311ed5470e4ba5b20570 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Andy Ng > Date:

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH imx6dl] Enable SION Bit for GPIO16 when ALT2 mode is selected

Hi Andy, On 12/02/2014 13:57, Andy Ng wrote: > From 45da8256deadb5c5cf38311ed5470e4ba5b20570 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Andy Ng > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:40:47 + > Subject: [PATCH] SION bit has to be on for the pins that are used as > ENET_REF_CLK > > Signed-off-by: Andy Ng > --- Y

Re: [U-Boot] [uBoot] [PATCH v2 1/2] common: spl: Add spl sata boot support

Bump On 02/10/2014 04:40 AM, Roger Quadros wrote: > Dan, > > On 02/07/2014 04:11 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: >> Roger >> >> On 02/07/2014 03:48 AM, Roger Quadros wrote: >>> Hi Dan, >>> >>> On 02/03/2014 02:59 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: Add spl_sata to read a fat partition from a bootable SATA drive

Re: [U-Boot] [uBoot] [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: O5/dra7xx: Add SATA boot support

Bump On 02/07/2014 03:42 AM, Roger Quadros wrote: > On 02/03/2014 02:59 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: >> Add the SATA boot support for OMAP5 and dra7xx. >> >> Renamed the omap_sata_init to the common init_sata(int dev) >> for commonality in with sata stack. >> >> Added the ROM boot device ID for SATA. >>

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] arm: Switch to -mno-unaligned-access when supported by the compiler

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:44:50AM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:28:19 -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:17:23PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > Dear Tom, > > > > > > In message <20140210212630.GB7049@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > > >

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/6] Add MS7206SE support.

At Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:50:12 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: > > Hi, Sato-san. > > 2014-02-11 21:24 GMT+09:00 Yoshinori Sato : > > Hi. > > This patch series add to Renesas MS7206SE board support. > > And SH2A targets various update. > > Please comment. > > Please use cover-letter option of git f

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] driver/mxc_i2c: Move static data structure to global_data

Dear York, In message <52faa233.6090...@freescale.com> you wrote: > > > Well, after relocation GD has also been relocated, so your SRAM would > > be comletely unused. > > Sounds like you are OK with using GD for this patch. Let's wait to hear from > Tom. He nacked this idea. I don't say I think

[U-Boot] [PATCH] imx6 SION bit has to be on for the pins that are used as ENET_REF_CLK

Signed-off-by: Andy Ng --- arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6dl_pins.h |6 +++--- arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6q_pins.h |6 +++--- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6dl_pins.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/mx6dl_pins.h in

[U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

The calloc() call was allocating space for the sizeof the struct pointer rather than for the struct contents. Signed-off-by: Hector Palacios --- disk/part_efi.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/disk/part_efi.c b/disk/part_efi.c index 5dfaf490c89a..7fabec059d7a

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] driver/mxc_i2c: Move static data structure to global_data

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:46:08PM -0800, York Sun wrote: > On 02/11/2014 10:01 AM, York Sun wrote: > > On 02/10/2014 02:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:28:01PM -0800, York Sun wrote: > >>> On 02/10/2014 02:10 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 02:02:52PM -080

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Hector Palacios wrote: > The calloc() call was allocating space for the sizeof the struct > pointer rather than for the struct contents. > > Signed-off-by: Hector Palacios > --- > disk/part_efi.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff -

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] driver/mxc_i2c: Move static data structure to global_data

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear York, > > In message <52faa233.6090...@freescale.com> you wrote: > > > > > Well, after relocation GD has also been relocated, so your SRAM would > > > be comletely unused. > > > > Sounds like you are OK with using GD for this p

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] arm: Switch to -mno-unaligned-access when supported by the compiler

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:37:55PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Måns, > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:33:09 +, Måns Rullgård > wrote: > > > The problem is that the current settings do > > the exact opposite. By using -munaligned-access by default, you are > > asking the compiler to go ahead

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/7] fdt: add "fdt sign" command

Hello Marek, Am 12.02.2014 11:46, schrieb Marek Vasut: On Monday, February 10, 2014 at 07:15:09 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: Hello Marek, Am 08.02.2014 15:09, schrieb Marek Vasut: On Saturday, January 25, 2014 at 07:44:24 AM, Heiko Schocher wrote: check if a fdt is correct signed pass an option

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] arm: Switch to -mno-unaligned-access when supported by the compiler

Dear Tom, In message <20140212142536.GA15819@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > No. The solution is to tell the compiler which optimizations it can, > and cannot use. If we stop telling it that native unaligned accesses > work it won't decide to make use of those optimizations. Can we do this in suc

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

Hi Hector, > The calloc() call was allocating space for the sizeof the struct > pointer rather than for the struct contents. > > Signed-off-by: Hector Palacios > --- > disk/part_efi.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/disk/part_efi.c b/disk/part_efi.c > i

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] arm: Switch to -mno-unaligned-access when supported by the compiler

Hi Tom, On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:35:55 -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:37:55PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > Hi Måns, > > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:33:09 +, Måns Rullgård > > wrote: > > > > > The problem is that the current settings do > > > the exact opposite. By u

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

Hi Lukasz, On 02/12/2014 04:56 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > Hi Hector, > >> The calloc() call was allocating space for the sizeof the struct >> pointer rather than for the struct contents. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hector Palacios >> --- >> disk/part_efi.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+),

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

Hi Hector, On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:24:26 +0100, "Palacios, Hector" wrote: > Unfortunately this is causing unaligned access in my i.MX6. > I'm specifically passing the -mno-unaligned-access when building this file so > I guess > it has to do with the macro and the packed structure. I don't thin

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

Hi Fabio, On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:43:02 -0200, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Hector Palacios > wrote: > > The calloc() call was allocating space for the sizeof the struct > > pointer rather than for the struct contents. > > > > Signed-off-by: Hector Palacios > > --- >

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

Hi Albert, On 02/12/2014 05:31 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Hector, > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:24:26 +0100, "Palacios, Hector" > wrote: > >> Unfortunately this is causing unaligned access in my i.MX6. >> I'm specifically passing the -mno-unaligned-access when building this file >> so I guess >

Re: [U-Boot] pull request for u-boot-tegra/master into ARM/master

Hi Tom, On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:19:20 -0700, Tom Warren wrote: > Albert, > > Please pull u-boot-tegra/master into ARM/master. Thanks! > > ./MAKEALL -s tegra AOK, checkpatch.pl is clean, and ./MAKEALL -a arm only > shows failures that were already present in ARM/master. > > The following changes

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

Hi Albert, On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> What about: >> >> p_mbr = calloc(1, sizeof(*p_mbr)) ? > > I don't like the idea of setting p_mbr based on *p_mbr at a time where > p_mbr is still undefined. I know that from a C standard perspective > this is ok, but I'd rather

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/11] Change some boards to use zImage in default environment

Hi Stefano, On 12 February 2014 06:11, Stefano Babic wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > On 12/02/2014 08:49, Marek Vasut wrote: > > >> > >> Anyway, I think the discussion is a bit away from which is the best > >> image. IMHO the board maintainer can decide which is the more suitable > >> default environmen

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/11] Change some boards to use zImage in default environment

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 02:11:23 PM, Stefano Babic wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 12/02/2014 08:49, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> Anyway, I think the discussion is a bit away from which is the best > >> image. IMHO the board maintainer can decide which is the more suitable > >> default environment

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] driver/mxc_i2c: Move static data structure to global_data

On 02/12/2014 06:43 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear York, >> >> In message <52faa233.6090...@freescale.com> you wrote: >>> Well, after relocation GD has also been relocated, so your SRAM would be comletely unused. >>> >>> Sounds

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

Hi Fabio, On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:33:17 -0200, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Albert, > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Albert ARIBAUD > wrote: > > >> What about: > >> > >> p_mbr = calloc(1, sizeof(*p_mbr)) ? > > > > I don't like the idea of setting p_mbr based on *p_mbr at a time where > > p_mb

Re: [U-Boot] [Patch v2] common: Add get_effective_memsize() to memsize.c

On 02/11/2014 11:34 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi York, > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:57:26 -0800, York Sun > wrote: > >> This function has been around for powerpc. It is used for systems with >> memory more than CONFIG_MAX_MEM_MAPPED. In case of non-contiguous memory, >> this feature can limit U-

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

Hi Hector, > Hi Albert, > > On 02/12/2014 05:31 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > Hi Hector, > > > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:24:26 +0100, "Palacios, Hector" > > wrote: > > > >> Unfortunately this is causing unaligned access in my i.MX6. > >> I'm specifically passing the -mno-unaligned-access when bui

[U-Boot] NAND bad block Query

Example taken from include/configs/sheevaplug.h #ifdef CONFIG_CMD_NAND #define CONFIG_ENV_IS_IN_NAND 1 #define CONFIG_ENV_SECT_SIZE0x2 /* 128K */ #else #define CONFIG_ENV_IS_NOWHERE 1 /* if env in SDRAM */ #endif /* * max 4k env size is enough, but in cas

[U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory commands

For aarch64, unsigned long is 64-bit data. Memory commands should be fixed with u32 for 32-bit address access. A double word data size is added to support 64-bit data. Signed-off-by: York Sun --- This patch fix this problem on aarch64 cp 3004 8000 1 This command causes alighment excepti

[U-Boot] [PATCH] pxe: prepend fdtdir to DTB name irrespective of source

From: Stephen Warren The directory name from an fdtdir directive in a PXE config file should always be pre-pended to the DTB filename; it shouldn't matter whether the DTB filename came from the $fdtfile environment variable, or whether it was constructed dynamically from ${soc}-${board}.dtb. Fix

Re: [U-Boot] NAND bad block Query

On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 21:04 +, Gray Remlin wrote: > Example taken from include/configs/sheevaplug.h > > #ifdef CONFIG_CMD_NAND > #define CONFIG_ENV_IS_IN_NAND 1 > #define CONFIG_ENV_SECT_SIZE0x2 /* 128K */ > #else > #define CONFIG_ENV_IS_NOWHERE 1 /* i

Re: [U-Boot] Chain loading an u-boot from an u-boot

On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 13:57 +0100, Helmut Raiger wrote: > On 02/10/2014 01:14 PM, Andreas Bießmann wrote: > > - we have a hardware design bug > > - we have a few hundred i.MX31 TT-01 devices in the field > > - the i.MX31 rom boot loader is only capable of using 1bit HW-ECC > > (loading the first pa

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory commands

Dear York Sun, In message <1392240023-25205-1-git-send-email-york...@freescale.com> you wrote: > For aarch64, unsigned long is 64-bit data. Memory commands should be fixed > with u32 for 32-bit address access. A double word data size is added to > support 64-bit data. > > Signed-off-by: York Sun

Re: [U-Boot] tlb15_entry is set wrong in the 4K code when the MPC8572DS boots from nand flash

On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 15:57 +0100, Y fan wrote: > Hello, > > The memory of the MPC8572DS can't be read correctly after the setup of the > tlb1_entry in the 4K boot code. What specific memory location can't be read? What part of the code is failing? What version of U-Boot are you running? > And

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory commands

On 02/12/2014 02:11 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear York Sun, > > In message <1392240023-25205-1-git-send-email-york...@freescale.com> you > wrote: >> For aarch64, unsigned long is 64-bit data. Memory commands should be fixed >> with u32 for 32-bit address access. A double word data size is added

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory commands

On 02/12/2014 02:11 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear York Sun, > > In message <1392240023-25205-1-git-send-email-york...@freescale.com> you > wrote: >> For aarch64, unsigned long is 64-bit data. Memory commands should be fixed >> with u32 for 32-bit address access. A double word data size is added

Re: [U-Boot] tlb15_entry is set wrong in the 4K code when the MPC8572DS boots from nand flash

On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 23:41 +0100, Y fan wrote: > Thank you for your reply. Please don't top post and don't post in HTML. > > u-boot 2014.01-rc3 v2014.01 has been released, BTW. > > The board MPC8572DS could work well with the u-boot code.However, when > I want to boot from the nand flash. Ther

Re: [U-Boot] P2041RDB: gcc 4.8.2/binutils 2.23.1 default to new GOT table layout

On Mon, 2014-02-10 at 15:19 +, Joerg Albert wrote: > Hi, > > I've recently compiled U-Boot (fsl-sdk-v1.3.2) for P2041RDB and had a > problem with ARP requests flooding if the peer was not there. > It turned out that NetArpWaitTimerStart was not relocated to RAM, but > remained in flash, so it

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 5/5] NAND: DaVinci: allow forced disable of subpage writes

On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 23:19 +, Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote: > >-Original Message- > >From: Scott Wood [mailto:scottw...@freescale.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:48 PM > >To: Karicheri, Muralidharan > >Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Rini, Tom; Andrianov, Vitaly > >Subject: Re:

[U-Boot] [RFC v2] Fix memory commands for 64-bit platforms

For aarch64, unsigned long is 64-bit data. Memory commands should be fixed with u32 for 32-bit address access. To be clear, ushort is replace with u16, u_char is replaced with u8. Signed-off-by: York Sun --- Change log: v1: Replace ulong with u32, ushort with u16, u_char with u8. Add 64-bit data

Re: [U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/3] mpc85xx: Add deep sleep framework support

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 02:00:40PM +0800, tang yuantian wrote: > From: Tang Yuantian > > When system wakes up from warm reset, control is passed to the > primary core that starts executing uboot. After re-initialized some > IP blocks, like DDRC, kernel will take responsibility to continue > to re

Re: [U-Boot] Secure booting

Hi, JYOTI: >Can anybody inform me why u-boot 2013 does not support secure booting? >Basically what are the differences between u-boot2009.08 and u-boot2013 >related to secure boot feature? What changes are required to develop secure >booting in u-boot 2013? Based on Simon's PPT, U-boot 2013.06 ver

Re: [U-Boot] T1040 booting from NOR Flash

Dear Franck Jullien, Franck Jullien gmail.com> writes: > > Hi, > > I'd like to know if I have understood it correctly. > > When first time booting from NOR, the RCW and PBI must be written > using the JTAG. The last instruction of the PBI must be a jump > (0x13_8080) to the user's code (uboot

[U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc/mpc8536DS:Increase binary size for mpc8536DS board

u-boot binary size for Freescale mpc8536DS platforms is 512KB. This has been reached to upper limit of the platforms and causig linker error. So increase the u-boot binary size to 768KB. Signed-off-by: Haijun Zhang --- include/configs/MPC8536DS.h | 10 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+),

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] part_efi: fix protective_mbr struct allocation

Hi Lukasz, On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:45:41 +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > I think, that the patch for fixing the unaligned access in this > function has already been posted by Piotr Wilczek. We have experienced > similar issues with Samsung's Exynos4 based targets. > > [PATCH V2] disk:efi: avoid

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory commands

Hi York, On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:42:30 -0800, York Sun wrote: > On 02/12/2014 02:11 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear York Sun, > > > > In message <1392240023-25205-1-git-send-email-york...@freescale.com> you > > wrote: > >> For aarch64, unsigned long is 64-bit data. Memory commands should be f

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory commands

> -Original Messages- > From: "Wolfgang Denk" > Sent Time: 2014-02-13 06:11:01 (Thursday) > To: "York Sun" > Cc: scottw...@freescale.com, u-boot@lists.denx.de > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory commands > > Dear York Sun, > > In message <1392240023-25205

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory commands

Hi FengHua, On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:41:07 +0800 (GMT+08:00), FengHua wrote: > > > > > -Original Messages- > > From: "Wolfgang Denk" > > Sent Time: 2014-02-13 06:11:01 (Thursday) > > To: "York Sun" > > Cc: scottw...@freescale.com, u-boot@lists.denx.de > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] A

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory commands

On Feb 12, 2014, at 6:41 PM, FengHua wrote: > > > >> -Original Messages- >> From: "Wolfgang Denk" >> Sent Time: 2014-02-13 06:11:01 (Thursday) >> To: "York Sun" >> Cc: scottw...@freescale.com, u-boot@lists.denx.de >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory comm

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] armv8/cache: Consolidate setting for MAIR and TCR

hi York, > -Original Messages- > From: "York Sun" > Sent Time: 2014-02-11 05:55:52 (Tuesday) > To: albert.u.b...@aribaud.net > Cc: scottw...@freescale.com, "York Sun" , "David Feng" > > Subject: [PATCH 1/3] armv8/cache: Consolidate setting for MAIR and TCR > > Move setting for MAIR an

Re: [U-Boot] Read line from console

Thanks Wolfgang, On 02/11/2014 12:19 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Eric, In message <52fa7158.8030...@boundarydevices.com> you wrote: Is there any facility for reading a line of text from the console, so we can prompt a user? Do you mean in C code, or as CLI command? CLI command. I fee

Re: [U-Boot] tlb15_entry is set wrong in the 4K code when the MPC8572DS boots from nand flash

Thank you for your reply. u-boot 2014.01-rc3 The board MPC8572DS could work well with the u-boot code.However, when I want to boot from the nand flash. There's something wrong. I have modified the CS0 to nand flash. when I make the uboot code, I use the command " make distclean; make MPC8572DS_

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Add 64-bit data support for memory commands

Dear York, In message <52fbf8d6.1050...@freescale.com> you wrote: > > > Can you please make all this code conditional for 64 bit architectures > > only, so that 32 bit systems do not suffer from the increased code > > size? > > I should point out the main reason of this patch is to fix the wrong

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/2] boards.cfg: Delete the equivalent entries

Hello Albert, > > There are some entries which produce the same binaries: > > - ep8248E is equivalent to ep8248 > > - MPC8360ERDK_66is equivalent to MPC8360ERDK > > - Adder87x/AdderUSB is equivalent to Adder > > - EVB64260_750CXis equivalent to EVB64260 > > > > I also notic

[U-Boot] [PATCH] usb: create common header virtual root hub descriptors

Many USB host controller drivers contain almost identical copies of the same virtual root hub descriptors. Put these into a common file to avoid duplication. Note that there were some very minor differences between the descriptors in the various files, such as: - USB 1.0 vs. USB 1.1 - Manufacture

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/2] boards.cfg: Delete the equivalent entries

Hi Masahiro, On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:32:12 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hello Albert, > > > > > There are some entries which produce the same binaries: > > > - ep8248E is equivalent to ep8248 > > > - MPC8360ERDK_66is equivalent to MPC8360ERDK > > > - Adder87x/AdderUSB is equ

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/2] boards.cfg: Delete the equivalent entries

Hello Albert, > > > > > > > > There are some entries which produce the same binaries: > > > > - ep8248E is equivalent to ep8248 > > > > - MPC8360ERDK_66is equivalent to MPC8360ERDK > > > > - Adder87x/AdderUSB is equivalent to Adder > > > > - EVB64260_750CXis equivalent to

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC v2] Fix memory commands for 64-bit platforms

Dear York Sun, In message <1392249335-29538-1-git-send-email-york...@freescale.com> you wrote: > For aarch64, unsigned long is 64-bit data. Memory commands should be fixed > with u32 for 32-bit address access. To be clear, ushort is replace with > u16, u_char is replaced with u8. > > Signed-off-b

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/2] boards.cfg: Delete the equivalent entries

Dear Masahiro Yamada, In message <20140213143212.97da.aa925...@jp.panasonic.com> you wrote: > > In the case of this patch, > (I am not familiar with "ep8248" board, but I guess) > ep8248 and ep8248E are different, but probably similar board. > > So we can use the common entry "ep8248" for them.

[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 1/2] power: add PFUZE100 PMIC driver

Signed-off-by: Tim Harvey Acked-by: Stefano Babic --- Changes in v3: - no changes Changes in v2: - remove detect and device_id display from pmic_init() Signed-off-by: Tim Harvey --- drivers/power/pmic/Makefile| 1 + drivers/power/pmic/pmic_pfuze100.c | 32 + include/p

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/2] boards.cfg: Delete the equivalent entries

Hi Masahiro, On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:46:41 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hello Albert, > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are some entries which produce the same binaries: > > > > > - ep8248E is equivalent to ep8248 > > > > > - MPC8360ERDK_66is equivalent to MPC8360ERDK > > > >

[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 0/2] IMX6: Add Gateworks Ventana support

Changes in v4: - fixed FP calculation - fixed invalid return type for read_eeprom() - use enum and defines for GSC HWMON registers/bits - removed unused CONFIG_SPI_FLASH_WINBOND_ERASESIZE - use defines for I2C bus numbers - added PCIE support - moved board-specific gpio iomux to board