Dear Dirk Behme, > Hi Marek, > > On 30.05.2012 07:49, Marek Vasut wrote: > > Dear Wolfgang Denk, > > > >> Dear Otavio Salvador, > >> > >> In message<1336866018-614-5-git-send-email-ota...@ossystems.com.br> you > > > > wrote: > >>> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador<ota...@ossystems.com.br> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> tools/mxsboot.c | 110 > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- 1 file > >>> changed, 55 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/tools/mxsboot.c b/tools/mxsboot.c > >>> index 6c05aa4..9661a48 100644 > >>> --- a/tools/mxsboot.c > >>> +++ b/tools/mxsboot.c > >>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > >>> > >>> /* > >>> > >>> - * Freescale i.MX28 image generator > >>> + * Freescale i.MXS image generator > >> > >> I'm unhappy about the name "i.MXS". > > > > I'm unhappy about the image generator ;-) > > > > Ok, now Otavio will probably hate me, but I believe it'd be much more > > helpful to convert mxsboot into part of mkimage (though this is > > unrelated to this patch). And maybe even better, study the generation of > > boot headers and compare it with mx53/mx6q ones, as mx53 ones are > > supported by imximage and mx28 carries direct predecessor of mx53 > > bootrom and then try to implement support into imximage part of mkimage. > > I wasn't aware of mxsboot before this thread, so I start looking at > it. I'm no expert of mx28 nor how the boot ROMs handle the NAND. > Therefore some comments and questions: > > Looking at > > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=tools/mxsboot.c;h=6c05aa479d4360c > 0c14cd0f989c250ecf119126d;hb=HEAD#l453 > > mxsboot seem to support NAND and SD. Looking at the options given > there, yes it sounds like a good idea to move that to imximage.
100% > One question regarding the NAND handling, though: > > Is mxsboot assumed to replace the Freescale tool 'kobs-ng' I believe so. It generates the necessary NAND headers for NAND boot. You can then write the resulting image directly at the begining of the NAND. > http://imxcommunity.org/forum/topics/i-mx6-nand-boot?commentId=4103961%3ACo > mment%3A69314&xg_source=activity > > ? > > It was my understanding that for the NAND the bad sector table is > necessary to be able to write a bootable image to the NAND? And this > can be done only on the target? You mean DBBT? From what I remember, the bad block handling is done with the BCH module and the first block is always OK anyway. Or it was somehow like that, but I might be wrong. The point is, mxsboot doesn't use DBBT. > While mxsboot runs on the host? So > it's not sufficient to give mxsboot the page/OOB/erase size options > because the bad sector table is individual for each board/NAND chip? I don't see why the bad sector table is needed at all as the BCH handles the ECC. > Best regards > > Dirk Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
