Hi Dan,
On 2018-03-12 22:29, Friedrich Daniel wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
> let me quote my mail to Claudio, who asked more or less the same on March
> 7th(see mail below).
> Personally, hoped that someone from Intel/Altera has the guts to answer this
> question or at least the Maintainer of the socfpga.
> I'm by far not good at u-boot, so it is just hacked together what was needed
> for the project so far.
>
> If any Maintainer reads this, I suggest removing the Arria10 from the current
> master branch as it is unusable(system does not even boot) for any one the
> way it is now.
>
>> Hello Claudio,
>>
>> I tried it as well and failed. My personal guess is that Altera/Intel never
>> pushed proper support into the official u-boot mainline.
>> Even there master-branch
>> (https://github.com/altera-opensource/u-boot-socfpga/tree/master) does not
>> work. For "just a user" it is very frustrating getting a new board abut have
>> to use old software.
>> And it seems Intel does not care in providing documentation, up-to-date
>> software or maintaining the released code.
>> For example if you look closer into the source code in the
>> socfpga_v2014.10_arria10_bringup-branch there is a module called cff which
>> loads the rbf-file in early release mode.
>> I could not find anything similar in the latest branches(neither from denx
>> not altera). Also the images generated from the latest releases generates
>> not the proper format needed to boot from an Arria10.
>>
>> So for my needs I used
>> (https://github.com/altera-opensource/u-boot-socfpga/tree/socfpga_v2014.10_arria10_bringup)
>> which is the version used in the Altera/Intel tools But changed it to my
>> needs (loading > rbf-file, kernel and devicetree from EXT, setting u-boot
>> environment to my needs etc.) I compile everything with the toolchain from
>> yocto V2.4. and so far it works good.
>> My changes are made public
>> here(https://github.com/nanosurf-ag/u-boot-socfpga) but this might still
>> subject to change.
>>
>> Hope this helps
>> dan
>
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
I informed myself these days (ELC-NA...) about the situation from U-boot
perspective. I'd still love to hear an official Intel statement as well.
For now I told our internal user that there is something to do (though
apparently not a lot - with the right people on the code) in order to
get a solution we can safely ship in a long living critical
infrastructure system. The current situation is suboptimal, for a number
of reasons, and that can easily disappoint our user about their hardware
supplier.
Thanks,
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot