Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:07:29 -0700 From: Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> To: Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> Cc: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CUBOX snapshots working? Message-ID: <CABx9NuRSCe54e%2B3LjOJphGP=5EAWYbBtub-%2BEvsE9JHXYdcmbw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20170926204622.67ae9edbca62e2dcdbd1ea31@bidouilliste.com> References: <201709260339.VAA16701@mail.lariat.net> <1506435673.73082.129.camel@freebsd.org> <201709261732.LAA21422@mail.lariat.net> <20170926200446.c188fda613df2ffb894b1ff3@bidouilliste.com> <1506450112.73082.143.camel@freebsd.org> <20170926204622.67ae9edbca62e2dcdbd1ea31@bidouilliste.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:21:52 -0600 > Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 20:04 +0200, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: >> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:32:21 -0600 >> > Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > One would think that sauce for the goose would be sauce for the >> > > gander. But is this particular Cubox now useless with FreeBSD? >> > > And if so, why? It is not an unusual model. The Cubox does work >> > > if I flash their "Ignition" startup software (which is used to >> > > bootstrap by downloading various OS images) to the same >> > > Micro SD card. >> > > >> > > --Brett Glass >> > The problem isn't FreeBSD related, it's U-Boot related. >> > >> > You could test build mainline u-boot just to confirm that it isn't >> > something due to our ports. >> > >> >> If we used to provide working cubox images and we don't anymore, it's >> hard to call that anything but a freebsd problem. > > There is working cubox images, the last one is from yesterday. > You even say yourself that you did test it and that it worked. > Do we even know if the snapshot worked for this board ? > Brett, could you test the 11.0 release for example ? (I don't remember > if for 11.1 we already switch u-boot or not). I believe the change is in the u-boot port itself. However, I don't think it's a u-boot problem (IMHO), it's a u-boot build configuration problem. There are different board variants with different hardware layout. u-boot has code for it, but our build does not account for. Unless the scripts that build the 11.1 image use a different revision of the u-boot port, wouldn't it just use the current 2017.7 base? I'm trying to figure out how to generate a u-boot with the correct SPL portion of u-boot. One could pull the SolidRun u-boot repo, or go find the ports commit before the changeover and see if we can generate the correct SPL. I looked at Mainline u-boot and there is a board directory for solid run. https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/board/solidrun/mx6cuboxi/mx6cuboxi.c seems to support multiple memory configurations based on defines, so this should just be a configuration problem. We clearly need to start supporting the lower spec'd SolidRun boards because this has come up a couple of times now since the changeover. It should be just a matter of creating a port that does the same thing but generates the correct SPL file? My SOM is a i2eX so I can't be too much help (and I've also over volunteered myself!). Russ >> You seem to be implying that this is another problem caused by >> switching from vendor-specific to mainline uboot. I'm not sure that's >> the case here, but if it is, be clear: It is purely a freebsd problem, >> because it was purely our choice (not mine) to switch from something >> that worked to something that doesn't. >> >> -- Ian > > Yes, maybe switching to mainline for IMX boards was a premature one, I > honestly don't have IMX board and don't know which way we should take. > All I can say is that for TI and Allwinner board, mainline U-Boot is > better (at least the support is the same). If you want to switch back > to vendor u-boot for IMX board fell free to do so (as long as you don't > change the other SoC U-Boot). >> > > >> > > At 08:21 AM 9/26/2017, Ian Lepore wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > > I just DLed and booted that snapshot on my Cubox-4i without any >> > > > problems. As near as I can tell, the only difference is you've >> > > > got the >> > > > dual-core chip and mine has the quad. >> > > > >> > > > The same u-boot should work for both. At least, that was the >> > > > case when >> > > > using the vendor-provided u-boot; the images are now built from >> > > > mainline u-boot. The output you provided does show that it >> > > > detected >> > > > the right kind of chip and amount of ram, so I think it should >> > > > support >> > > > both flavors of cubox. >> > > > >> > > > -- Ian >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list >> > > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm >> > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.o >> > > rg" >> > > > > -- > Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> <manu@freebsd.org> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CABx9NuRSCe54e%2B3LjOJphGP=5EAWYbBtub-%2BEvsE9JHXYdcmbw>