Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 3 Oct 2022 17:18:57 -0700
From:      bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net>
To:        Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com>
Cc:        Klaus K??chemann <maciphone2@googlemail.com>, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: u-boot debug, was: Re: U-boot on RPI3, sees disk but won't boot it
Message-ID:  <20221004001857.GA7109@www.zefox.net>
In-Reply-To: <B32F06DD-DFAF-4CB7-A973-7C07846F6E8E@yahoo.com>
References:  <ABFDD634-5CB6-4DAE-B4DE-629CE7E4FE06@yahoo.com> <20221001193033.GA98348@www.zefox.net> <46226720-D867-4AD3-9559-A4365FAC28C4@yahoo.com> <6DB88FC9-629C-43E6-9673-32640FC547F7@yahoo.com> <20221002182049.GA2255@www.zefox.net> <5FFDAA6A-AD8C-4E40-A2EB-4082E5086679@googlemail.com> <38DFEB91-AC60-4FD1-8088-95B0A06C5E5D@yahoo.com> <EEC43DA1-6B68-4FDD-A68A-A3055E86E407@googlemail.com> <20221003004624.GA3381@www.zefox.net> <B32F06DD-DFAF-4CB7-A973-7C07846F6E8E@yahoo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 07:30:57PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2022-Oct-2, at 17:46, bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The more troublesome bridge contains a JMS577 chip, the less troublesome JMS576.
> 
> I'm confused. The logs I have show 0x0583 (earlier) and 0x577 (later).
> I'm not aware of a 0x0576 example in the set at all.
> 
> (The JMS??? naming and the 0x0??? product ID's normally match for
> the ??? part.)
> 
On close inspection the enclosure recognized as  0x152d:0x583 
contains the JMS576 chip. That's the better-behaved one.

The enclosure recognized as 0x152d:0x0577 contains a JMS577 chip,
that's the worse-behaved unit. 

It looks like the first two EC-UASP enclosures purchased (which both 
work fine on RPi4's) report 152d:1561. They are clearly different, 
with crystal cans on the circuit boards.  

The two units we're fiddling with presently came much later, under 
the same product description.  


> 
> I'll note that I've reverted my active environment back to
> its normal content. I've not figured out a way to get
> reasonable evidence, given the combinations we have observed.

Understood. 
 
> I'll note that RPi3 EDK2 UEFI is not an option as far as I
> know. I've never had it work for two things that I checked
> up front:
> 

I take it that EDK2 is a tool for _writing_ bootloaders,
not a bootloader itself; is that correct? 

Thank you for all you help, I'm sorry it's turning
into such a snipe hunt.

bob prohaska




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20221004001857.GA7109>