Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 08:57:15AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:29:39 -0700 >> Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 02:15:16PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: >> > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:48:54 +0100 >> > > Neil Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > ... and because some boards still don't tftp boot in a sane way >> > > (imx53). i.e. there is no bootz command on the u-boot I have on the >> > > imx53 by default. >> > >> > I've been enabling things like bootz and ext4 support in recently >> > added boards in Debian's u-boot, I can look into enabling for the >> > mx53loco board if that would be helpful, although it sounds like >> > you're using whatever u-boot is shipped with the boards? >> >> Yes, LAVA needs clearer support for the bootloader itself, but in my >> home lab I'm free to change bootloaders around. When you say Debian's >> u-boot, how are you anticipating that to be deployed on the imx53? Are >> you describing the u-boot inside the Debian Installer ISO images or a >> particular build/package of u-boot for iMX53? > > I'm referring to the u-boot package, which includes the mx53loco build of a > u-boot image: > > https://packages.qa.debian.org/u/u-boot.html > > Maybe mx53loco is not the iMX53 board you're referring to?
[ slightly off-topic] fwiw, I fear "loco" name should not be used at all. One should rather use imx53qsb or imx53qsb-r (for this one, the dts is imx53qsrb in the kernel). They're basically the same board but with different PMIC which is a big difference. About the "loco" name, I think I've read one some mailing list it was the name of the prototype/board which eventually became the imx53qsb later so there may be some (smallish?) HW differences between "loco" and imx53qsb. Arnaud -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
