Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:22:42 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.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: <CANCZdfqGPc_kK3bfvaQ7iE3oa3Dqf0nRirqacOKiHdmkbnEX=w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfofigFMdv=BqRVy24%2Bj=C7zpJ4gRf4YBcStKn4dGxLesQ@mail.gmail.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> <CABx9NuRSCe54e%2B3LjOJphGP=5EAWYbBtub-%2BEvsE9JHXYdcmbw@mail.gmail.com> <1506460653.73082.156.camel@freebsd.org> <CANCZdfqAM-kXuBq2YcngR9PKajxJSTa_UNpm-v7zbMH2bvpo6g@mail.gmail.com> <1506466528.73082.172.camel@freebsd.org> <CANCZdfp55ZB5tT%2BBN2=gO88gzEa2pVH724=%2BuXY6L3v6maQUAg@mail.gmail.com> <20170927112015.e997d7b1b8e9002c8377547a@bidouilliste.com> <CANCZdfofigFMdv=BqRVy24%2Bj=C7zpJ4gRf4YBcStKn4dGxLesQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:05:40 -0600 >> Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > >> > > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 16:45 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >> > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 14:07 -0700, Russell Haley wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Emmanuel Vadot >> <manu@bidouillis >> > > > > > te.c >> > > > > > om> 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/ >> mx6cu >> > > > > > boxi >> > > > > > /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 >> > > > > > >> > > > > The old imx6 uboot ports generated a single copy of uboot that >> > > > > would >> > > > > boot dual and quad-core versions of both hummingboard and cubox >> > > > > systems. If the new uboot works only on quad core, that's another >> > > > > regression. It might be possible to extract the u-boot.imx file >> > > > > from a >> > > > > freebsd 10 image to get back to the old one. >> > > > > >> > > > > Ooops. Except it appears those no longer exist. >> > > > >> > > > Is this a loss of functionality when the changes were upstreamed? Is >> > > > it a >> > > > bad configuration on our part? Any idea what might be going on or >> how >> > > > to >> > > > fix it? >> > > >> > > The vendor uboot worked well. The generic mainline, apparently not so >> > > much. It may indicate that the vendor didn't upstream everything. I >> > > haven't worked much with the new imx6 uboot packages because for me >> > > they're completely unusable because they lack support for netbooting. >> > > (If you feel tempted to say something about efi and netbooting, >> please >> > > provide links to how-to documentation at the very least, and an >> example >> > > that works for armv6 would be even better.) >> > > >> > >> > I didn't think that we were enabling EFI + armv6 on anything yet by >> > default... >> > >> > Can't help you there. >> > >> > Warner >> >> We do, EFI is enabled by default in U-Boot on most of the boards. > > > And GENERIC actually supports that? > And more importantly, we have the right tooling to build the right images for EFI booting? Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfqGPc_kK3bfvaQ7iE3oa3Dqf0nRirqacOKiHdmkbnEX=w>