On Oct 8, 2008, at 8:17 AM, Jerry Van Baren wrote: > Kumar Gala wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Jerry Van Baren wrote: >>> Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>>> * Use new find_cmd_tbl() to process sub-commands >>>>> >>>>> If this looks good I'll go ahead and clean it up for the other >>>>> arches and OSes. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> common/cmd_bootm.c | 142 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>>>> include/image.h | 20 ++++- >>>>> lib_ppc/bootm.c | 262 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> +------------------ >>>>> 3 files changed, 330 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-) >>>> Guys, >>>> Any comments on this? >>>> - k >>> >>> I didn't get to it over the weekend. Here in the North summer is >>> a fleeting thing to be savored while it lasts. :-/ >> Any more feedback on this towards getting something into -next? >> - k > > Hi Kumar, > > I've been working on the micro side (the bootm [a-z]+ commands) and > the macro side (understanding cmd_bootm.c and image.c). > > I've been keeping notes on the denx.de wiki (inappropriately) on the > FDT page. They aren't entirely coherent either. :-/ > > I applied your changeset and verified that the traditional bootm > syntax worked. I then tried to figure out a working sequence of > bootm [a-z]+ commands and failed. > <http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/UBootFdtInfo#Sequence> > * I didn't see any command for disabling interrupts
You have to have the interrupt command built in. than you can do 'interrupts off' > > * When I do the "bootm loados" command, my target (MPC8360EMDS) > reboots > * Could be because interrupts are not disabled but we overwrite the > exception vectors. > * Could be I'm doing something wrong. this is most likely the case. > Do you have a boot script "use case" to illustrate a sequence that > works for you? yes, will post in a follow up. > I have also been looking at the functions defined in cmd_bootm.c and > image.c. Image.c is HUGE. Cmd_bootm.c is pretty complex and part > of the complexity is that it is closely coupled with image.c > functions. > * I would like to separate and understand the control flow separate > from the image handling, fdt handling, bd_t handling, etc. > * Image.c is WAY too large: 2x what it probably should be. Looking > at it, it seems like we should pull all the FIT stuff out of image.c > and make a new fit_image.c. (I don't know what sort of coupling > there would be between a legacy image.c and a new fit_image.c, I > suspect not much.) > > Enumerating the functions: > <http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/UBootFdtInfo#Refactoring_cmd_bootm_c > > > <http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/UBootFdtInfo#Refactoring_image_c> refactoring image.c is orthogonal to the functionality I'm trying to enable. - k _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
