Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:46:22 +0200 From: Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CUBOX snapshots working? Message-ID: <20170926204622.67ae9edbca62e2dcdbd1ea31@bidouilliste.com> In-Reply-To: <1506450112.73082.143.camel@freebsd.org> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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: > >=20 > > >=20 > > > 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. > > >=20 > > > --Brett Glass > > =A0The problem isn't FreeBSD related, it's U-Boot related. > >=20 > > =A0You could test build mainline u-boot just to confirm that it isn't > > something due to our ports. > >=20 >=20 > 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). > You seem to be implying that this is another problem caused by > switching from vendor-specific to mainline uboot. =A0I'm not sure that's > the case here, but if it is, be clear: =A0It is purely a freebsd problem, > because it was purely our choice (not mine) to switch from something > that worked to something that doesn't. >=20 > -- 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). > > >=20 > > > At 08:21 AM 9/26/2017, Ian Lepore wrote: > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > I just DLed and booted that snapshot on my Cubox-4i without any > > > > problems.=A0=A0As near as I can tell, the only difference is you've > > > > got the > > > > dual-core chip and mine has the quad. > > > >=20 > > > > The same u-boot should work for both.=A0=A0At least, that was the > > > > case when > > > > using the vendor-provided u-boot; the images are now built from > > > > mainline u-boot.=A0=A0The 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. > > > >=20 > > > > -- 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" > >=20 --=20 Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> <manu@freebsd.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170926204622.67ae9edbca62e2dcdbd1ea31>