On 27 September 2011 01:27, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Jamie, > > In message <loom.20110927t050021-...@post.gmane.org> you wrote: > > > > > Not anymore. Because no one fixed this board in the last two years, the > > > board was removed from U-Boot mainline. It is not supported. > ... > > That's too bad. I've been developing for the board for the past 3 years > and > > only recently have been given the opportunity to re-examine the loader > and root > > file system. > > It would be trivial to re-add the board if there is someone who > actively maintains the related code. >
I reverted 'v2011.06-0-gb1af6f5' without knowing the support had been taken away (I saw "m501sk" in boards.cfg.) It was only after I made some changes that I found this thread. If I'm successful, I can post changes, and could take on support, but if you're not getting any pull for M501 cards is it worth it? > > #if defined(CONFIG_AT91RM9200) > > -# include <asm/arch/at91rm9200.h> > > +# include <asm/arch-at91/at91rm9200.h> > > #elif defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9260) || defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9G20) || \ > > defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9XE) > > -# include <asm/arch/at91sam9260.h> > > +# include <asm/arch-at91/at91sam9260.h> > > #elif defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9261) || defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9G10) > > -# include <asm/arch/at91sam9261.h> > > +# include <asm/arch-at91/at91sam9261.h> > > #elif defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9263) > > -# include <asm/arch/at91sam9263.h> > > +# include <asm/arch-at91/at91sam9263.h> > > #elif defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9RL) > > -# include <asm/arch/at91sam9rl.h> > > +# include <asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h> > > #elif defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9G45) || defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9M10G45) > > -# include <asm/arch/at91sam9g45.h> > > +# include <asm/arch-at91/at91sam9g45.h> > > #elif defined(CONFIG_AT91CAP9) > > -# include <asm/arch/at91cap9.h> > > +# include <asm/arch-at91/at91cap9.h> > > #elif defined(CONFIG_AT91X40) > > -# include <asm/arch/at91x40.h> > > +# include <asm/arch-at91/at91x40.h> > > All these modifications are bogus and should be removed. They are not > needed either. > Is the configuration meant to create a symbolic link (asm/arch -> asm/arch-at91)? If so I'll have to investigate how the make works. Without the above changes I get the error: /u-boot/include/asm/arch-at91/hardware.h:28:34: error: asm/arch/at91rm9200.h: No such file or directory It seemed harmless enough to change the "hardware.h" file as it itself is located in the "arch-at91" directory. > > diff --git a/include/configs/m501sk.h b/include/configs/m501sk.h > > index 68f0415..55b9154 100644 > > --- a/include/configs/m501sk.h > > +++ b/include/configs/m501sk.h > > @@ -162,7 +162,9 @@ > > > > #define CONFIG_NR_DRAM_BANKS 1 > > #define PHYS_SDRAM 0x20000000 > > -#define PHYS_SDRAM_SIZE 0x2000000 /* 32 megs */ > > +#define PHYS_SDRAM_SIZE 0x4000000 /* 64 megs */ > > +#define CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE PHYS_SDRAM > > +#define CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR (PHYS_SDRAM + (PHYS_SDRAM_SIZE >> > 13)) > > This is a highly cryptic way to say "+ 8192" - is there any rationale > for such an unreadable way to express this? > Okay ... fair enough. > > #define CONFIG_SYS_MEMTEST_START 0x21000000 /* PHYS_SDRAM */ > > /* CONFIG_SYS_MEMTEST_START + PHYS_SDRAM_SIZE - 262144 */ > > Hm - after reverting commit b1a2bd4 and then applying your patches, I > still get: > > Configuring for m501sk board... > make[1]: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop. > make: *** [arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/at91rm9200/libat91rm9200.o] Error 2 > > Sorry, this does not work. > > I get the error when I revert to b1a2bd4 too, but the patch above I applied the to b1af6f5. The commands I did in order were: ~/$ git clone git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git && cd u-boot ~/$ git checkout b1af6f5 ~/$ patch -p1 < ../my-m501sk.patch ~/$ make m501sk_config ~/$ make all I'm not at a computer with a working linker, but the build goes through until the final "arm-...-ld" linker line. - Jamie
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
