Op 29 mei 2011, om 14:18 heeft Gary Thomas het volgende geschreven: > On 05/29/2011 05:46 AM, Koen Kooi wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 29-05-11 13:34, Gary Thomas wrote: >>> On 05/28/2011 07:00 AM, Gary Thomas wrote: >>>> On 05/28/2011 05:45 AM, Koen Kooi wrote: >>>>> (Adding beagle group to CC:) >>>>> >>>>> Op 28 mei 2011, om 12:46 heeft Gary Thomas het volgende geschreven: >>>>> >>>>>> On 05/28/2011 04:35 AM, Koen Kooi wrote: >>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28-05-11 12:07, Gary Thomas wrote: >>>>>>>> I just built Angstrom via oe-core for the BeagleBoard, rev C3 (not >>>>>>>> xM) >>>>>>>> Here were my steps: >>>>>>>> $ git clone git://git.angstrom-distribution.org/setup-scripts >>>>>>>> angstrom-bb >>>>>>>> $ cd angstrom-bb >>>>>>>> $ git checkout -b local-oe origin/oe-core >>>>>>>> $ MACHINE=beagleboard ./oebb.sh config beagleboard >>>>>>>> $ MACHINE=beagleboard ./oebb.sh bitbake console-image >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It doesn't boot at all. I built a bootable SD from the deploy/images, >>>>>>>> including MLO and U-Boot. Here's the boot sequence (I broke in to set >>>>>>>> the console): >>>>>>>> Texas Instruments X-Loader 1.4.4ss (Jan 29 2011 - 10:54:03) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That should say 1.5.0, but wouldn't cause boot problems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For reference, this is what I get on my C3: >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems like every major component (MLO, U-Boot, Linux kernel) >>>>>> differs between >>>>>> my build and yours. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what did you do differently? Why is my build so different (and >>>>>> not work)? >>>>>> I used the stock conf/local.conf - did you make any changes to it? >>>>> >>>>> You're right, my FAT partition was a mess, I recreated the card using >>>>> OE-core built stuff, log is further below. The one change I have is >>>>> this one: >>>>> http://patches.openembedded.org/patch/4677/ which might explain the >>>>> problems Gary is seeing, but not the problems I'm encountering. >>>> >>>> I'm trying this now with that patch applied. So far, I can already see >>>> signs >>>> of change (fewer strange warnings while parsing recipes, etc). I'm >>>> doing a >>>> complete build from scratch, so I won't know the results for a few hours. >>> >>> Sadly, I'm still getting the same results even with this patch. >>> >>> I'm still curious why my components are different (MLO=1.4.4 vs 1.5 for >>> you, etc)? >> >> It's probably loading from nand, do a 'nand erase.chip' from inside uboot > > I pressed the user button to force it to read from MMC and see the > correct date. Here are the package versions that were built: > u-boot-v2011.03+git1+b29fbb347698286935bfc401c08499a6f63479de-r3 > x-load-1.42+r13+git1+6f3a26101303051e0f91b6213735b68ce804e94e-r13 > linux-omap-2.6.39-r0 > > I am confused by this though. For example, that version of x-load is > coming from > sources/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-bsp/x-load/x-load_git.bb > not (as I think yours is) > sources/meta-texasinstruments/recipes-bsp/x-load/x-load_git.bb > It would seem to me that the build should come from the meta-texasinstruments > layer which has priority=10? The list of all packages built by the process > I've described (above) is attached. How does it line up with what you've > built and why the difference(s)?
You might have an old copy of the setup-scripts, which revision are you using? I check on my 3 buildhosts and they all build the correct MLO, but I can imagine that using an old bblayers.conf would seriously mess that up. regards, Koen regards, Koen _______________________________________________ Angstrom-distro-devel mailing list Angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/angstrom-distro-devel
