Hi Folks,
I've started building the 2024.10 RCs in F-41+ so it would be great to
get some testing.
I found that at least the Allwinner a64 devices looked like they
regressed in F-40 and I've tested the Pine64+ with the rc2 build and I
think they should be OK now.
It would be great if people coul
Hi Folks,
The 2023.10 RC series are now landing in F-39 and rawhide. There's
been the beginnings of a few enhancements.
The first one that is noticeable is a bootmenu during the firmware
init process where it will allow you to select the device/partition
you wish to boot from, with the default se
I am using an imx6 SoM from SolidRun. We have purchased a large number of
these and mostly they work fine.
I tried to update to Fedora 25 and now a few of them won't boot. (most work
fine)
All my SoMs are all supposed to be the same but some must be different.
Both worked fine with an older versi
Hi,
On 05/01/2015 03:56 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Hi,
I have to take this back, it seems that this build is appending:
" console=ttyS0,115200"
To the kernel cmdline, I've just double-checked and this is not upstream
behavior, is this being done by Fedora specific patches ?
This breaks ker
>
> [...]
>
> Common / widely available dev-boards:
>
> Linksprite_pcDuino3_Nano
> Linksprite_pcDuino3
> Linksprite_pcDuino
> Marsboard_A10
> Orangepi (*)
> Orangepi_mini (*)
>
>
> [...]
>
> Hans
>
>
> *) The Orangepi's do not have a dts upstream yet, but we do need to
> enable them eventually, mi
Hi,
> I have to take this back, it seems that this build is appending:
>
> " console=ttyS0,115200"
>
> To the kernel cmdline, I've just double-checked and this is not upstream
> behavior, is this being done by Fedora specific patches ?
>
> This breaks kernel output and systemd status messages
Hi,
On 03/21/2015 02:49 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 03:40:20 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 21-03-15 15:21, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 06-03-15 23:50, Peter Robinson wrote:
I assume that we will be rebasing u-boot to the just released v2015.01
for F-22? But I was
On 03/21/2015 02:49 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 03:40:20 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 21-03-15 15:21, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 06-03-15 23:50, Peter Robinson wrote:
I assume that we will be rebasing u-boot to the just released v2015.01
for F-22? But I was won
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 03:40:20 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21-03-15 15:21, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 06-03-15 23:50, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >>> I assume that we will be rebasing u-boot to the just released v2015.01
> >>> for F-22? But I was wondering if there is any
Hi,
On 21-03-15 15:32, Peter Robinson wrote:
I assume that we will be rebasing u-boot to the just released v2015.01
for F-22? But I was wondering if there is any chance we can jump to
v2015.04 ? The reason I'm asking is that things are progressing
quite rapidly on the u-boot side, at least with
Hi,
On 21-03-15 15:21, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 06-03-15 23:50, Peter Robinson wrote:
I assume that we will be rebasing u-boot to the just released v2015.01
for F-22? But I was wondering if there is any chance we can jump to
v2015.04 ? The reason I'm asking is that things are progressing
qu
>>> I assume that we will be rebasing u-boot to the just released v2015.01
>>> for F-22? But I was wondering if there is any chance we can jump to
>>> v2015.04 ? The reason I'm asking is that things are progressing
>>> quite rapidly on the u-boot side, at least with Allwinner SoC support,
>>> I've
Hi,
On 06-03-15 23:50, Peter Robinson wrote:
I assume that we will be rebasing u-boot to the just released v2015.01
for F-22? But I was wondering if there is any chance we can jump to
v2015.04 ? The reason I'm asking is that things are progressing
quite rapidly on the u-boot side, at least with
> I assume that we will be rebasing u-boot to the just released v2015.01
> for F-22? But I was wondering if there is any chance we can jump to
> v2015.04 ? The reason I'm asking is that things are progressing
> quite rapidly on the u-boot side, at least with Allwinner SoC support,
> I've just send
> I assume that we will be rebasing u-boot to the just released v2015.01
> for F-22? But I was wondering if there is any chance we can jump to
> v2015.04 ? The reason I'm asking is that things are progressing
> quite rapidly on the u-boot side, at least with Allwinner SoC support,
> I've just send
Hi All,
I assume that we will be rebasing u-boot to the just released v2015.01
for F-22? But I was wondering if there is any chance we can jump to
v2015.04 ? The reason I'm asking is that things are progressing
quite rapidly on the u-boot side, at least with Allwinner SoC support,
I've just send
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:14:19 -0500
> Adam Goode wrote:
>
>> Works great for me! Thanks.
>>
>> Does anyone have a beaglebone white? I'm still worried that this fix
>> will break that board.
>
> I tested on my beaglebone white before i subm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:14:19 -0500
Adam Goode wrote:
> Works great for me! Thanks.
>
> Does anyone have a beaglebone white? I'm still worried that this fix
> will break that board.
>
>
> Adam
I tested on my beaglebone white before i submitted the
- Original Message -
> Works great for me! Thanks.
>
> Does anyone have a beaglebone white? I'm still worried that this fix
> will break that board.
Works okay on the Beaglebone White using the F21 TC1 Minimal image. Hit
a couple of errors at the beginning, but the system came up fine.
If you follow these instructions, you can make an SD card:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/F21/Installation#Scripted
Adam
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz <
mjuszkiew...@redhat.com> wrote:
> W dniu 13.11.2014 o 15:14, Adam Goode pisze:
> > Works great for m
W dniu 13.11.2014 o 15:14, Adam Goode pisze:
> Works great for me! Thanks.
>
> Does anyone have a beaglebone white? I'm still worried that this fix
> will break that board.
I did not followed thread but have working BBW somewhere. can you point
me to SD card image which I can use to test?
___
Works great for me! Thanks.
Does anyone have a beaglebone white? I'm still worried that this fix
will break that board.
Adam
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> Problem should now be fixed with -5
>
> Can you test and provide karma so we can get it in GA.
>
>
Hi Adam,
Problem should now be fixed with -5
Can you test and provide karma so we can get it in GA.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-14716/uboot-tools-2014.10-5.fc21
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Adam Goode wrote:
> This is still present with -3. It looks like this versi
Already got one locally being tested, should be pushed tomorrow.
Peter
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Adam Goode wrote:
> I filed a bug for the beaglebone black eMMC problem:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161619
>
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Adam Goode wrot
I filed a bug for the beaglebone black eMMC problem:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161619
Adam
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Adam Goode wrote:
> A one-line change to the specfile fixed eMMC booting for me (also
> tested with booting from SD card):
>
> Change "make am335x_evm_
A one-line change to the specfile fixed eMMC booting for me (also
tested with booting from SD card):
Change "make am335x_evm_config" to "make am335x_boneblack_config".
I believe this is the correct config, as shown here:
http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commitdiff;h=b6ab550413b6b64d0024e9dec8bf
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Adam Goode wrote:
> This is still present with -3. It looks like this version of U-Boot is
> not capable of booting from the internal eMMC on beaglebone black.
>
> U-Boot SPL 2014.10-g4647503-dirty (Oct 24 2014 - 16:47:41)
> omap_hsmmc_send_cmd: timedout waiting on
This is still present with -3. It looks like this version of U-Boot is
not capable of booting from the internal eMMC on beaglebone black.
U-Boot SPL 2014.10-g4647503-dirty (Oct 24 2014 - 16:47:41)
omap_hsmmc_send_cmd: timedout waiting on cmd inhibit to clear
spl: mmc init failed: err - -19
### ERR
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2014-10-24 12:21, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> A minor bug and is fixed in uboot-tools-2014.10-3.fc21
>
>
> Does this also fix booting on the Pandaboard?
Not yet
___
arm mailing list
arm@lists
On 2014-10-24 12:21, Peter Robinson wrote:
A minor bug and is fixed in uboot-tools-2014.10-3.fc21
Does this also fix booting on the Pandaboard?
http://fpaste.org/144729/
--
Yaakov Selkowitz
Associate Software Engineer, ARM
Red Hat, Inc.
___
arm mail
A minor bug and is fixed in uboot-tools-2014.10-3.fc21
Peter
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Adam Goode wrote:
> Hopefully I did something wrong, but it's not working at all for me on
> the beaglebone black:
>
> Here is what I get when I try to boot from eMMC:
>
> U-Boot SPL 2014.10-gc4b8756-di
Hopefully I did something wrong, but it's not working at all for me on
the beaglebone black:
Here is what I get when I try to boot from eMMC:
U-Boot SPL 2014.10-gc4b8756-dirty (Oct 15 2014 - 08:57:04)
omap_hsmmc_send_cmd: timedout waiting on cmd inhibit to clear
spl: mmc init failed: err - -19
##
Hi All,
Just a heads up that the u-boot 2014.10 GA is on it's way to Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uboot-tools-2014.10-1.fc21
This release contains numerous fixes and improvements over the
currently shipping release including, but by no means limited to:
* Upstream generic d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 30 May 2014 15:41:55 +0200
Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Are we going to stay with 2014.04, or are we going to move to
> 2014.07 ?
>
> The main reason I'm asking is because of Allwinner support. Currently
> we (the linux sunxi communit
Hi All,
Are we going to stay with 2014.04, or are we going to move to 2014.07 ?
The main reason I'm asking is because of Allwinner support. Currently
we (the linux sunxi community) are making good progress on getting
sunxi support into 2014.07, so if we're going to go with that then
I'm going to
So far looks like we have good coverage on the Wandboard.
(thanks for testing)
We should test TI boards, or any other board where we install u-boot.img.
(even if we don't fully support booting that board this cycle)
The QA Blocker meeting just now proposed & accepted this be a freeze
exception, n
On Sun, 2013-10-20 at 18:22 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> I have proposed
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uboot-tools-2013.10-2.fc20 as a
> blocker for beta I would appreciate as many people testing it as
> possible and providing karma in bodhi, thanks.
>
> The build fixes autobooting
2013/10/21 Dennis Gilmore
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have proposed
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uboot-tools-2013.10-2.fc20 as a
> blocker for beta I would appreciate as many people testing it as
> possible and providing karma in bodhi, thanks.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
I have proposed
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uboot-tools-2013.10-2.fc20 as a
blocker for beta I would appreciate as many people testing it as
possible and providing karma in bodhi, thanks.
The build fixes autobooting for wandboard
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 9:33 AM, peter kotvan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on kernel package for ARM devices. It's my bachelor thesis. I
> have dreamplug, so now im trying to get build dreamplug kernel subpackage.
> Currently i have problems with configuration, but i'm working on it. After
> that
Hi,
I'm working on kernel package for ARM devices. It's my bachelor thesis. I
have dreamplug, so now im trying to get build dreamplug kernel subpackage.
Currently i have problems with configuration, but i'm working on it. After
that i'll probably work on beagle board subpackage..
If anybody has a
On Oct 14, 2011, at 1:07 PM, David A. Marlin wrote:
> Gordan Bobic wrote:
>> On 10/14/2011 07:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/14/2011 10:54 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
>>>
Note that the GuruPlug ships with a broken uboot, which uses the wrong
machine identifier. To use a mainlin
Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 07:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2011 10:54 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
>>
>>> Note that the GuruPlug ships with a broken uboot, which uses the wrong
>>> machine identifier. To use a mainline kernel, you must munge the kernel
>>> machine ID or up
On 10/14/2011 07:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 10:54 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
>> Note that the GuruPlug ships with a broken uboot, which uses the wrong
>> machine identifier. To use a mainline kernel, you must munge the kernel
>> machine ID or update the GuruPlug's uboot.
>
> Ooh, goo
On 10/14/2011 10:54 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
> Note that the GuruPlug ships with a broken uboot, which uses the wrong
> machine identifier. To use a mainline kernel, you must munge the kernel
> machine ID or update the GuruPlug's uboot.
Ooh, good to know.
> The phrase "the kernel we're working with
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 10:15 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 07:20 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> > Do we have a list of "popular (and easy to support) ARM platform"?
> > Would this include e.g. the SheevaPlug, GuruPlug, and/or DreamPlug
> > kirkwood-based devices?
>
> In the context of th
On 10/14/2011 07:20 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Do we have a list of "popular (and easy to support) ARM platform"?
> Would this include e.g. the SheevaPlug, GuruPlug, and/or DreamPlug
> kirkwood-based devices?
In the context of the discussion, it appears the Dreamplug (And
presumably earlier plugs)
DJ Delorie writes:
>> Should Fedora for ARM officially support for some well known boards?
>
> I think it's important to have some easy-to-use installer for a few
> popular (and easy to support) ARM platforms.
>
> The rest of the questions are harder to answer ;-)
Do we have a list of "popular (
El jue, 13-10-2011 a las 23:56 +0200, Henrik Nordström escribió:
> tor 2011-10-13 klockan 17:32 -0400 skrev Jon Masters:
>
> > The question is not about supporting "u-boot", it's about supporting
> > "u-boot build for board X". So the package (if indeed it is a package)
> > would be for MLO (x-loa
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 02:32 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> Thanks for asking it. I thought we'd already pretty much decided to
>> "support" TrimSlice and PandaBoard/BeagleBoard for example.
>
> That's certainly what we've done with the kernel so far.
>
On 10/13/2011 02:32 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> Thanks for asking it. I thought we'd already pretty much decided to
> "support" TrimSlice and PandaBoard/BeagleBoard for example.
That's certainly what we've done with the kernel so far.
Let me precede the following by saying I don't think anybody is
tor 2011-10-13 klockan 17:32 -0400 skrev Jon Masters:
> The question is not about supporting "u-boot", it's about supporting
> "u-boot build for board X". So the package (if indeed it is a package)
> would be for MLO (x-loader) and u-boot for a specific e.g. TI board
> because the image has to con
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 21:22 +0200, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> Been a rather intense discussion regarding U-Boot on IRC today, and time
> for some reflections and a little decision to be taken.
Well, maybe ;)
> In stage3 we do have an u-boot package which provides uboot images for
> pandaboard, tr
On 10/13/2011 12:22 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> Should Fedora for ARM officially support for some well known boards?
I would like to see Fedora ARM installable on popular ARM boards by
conventional installation mechanisms (IE, anaconda) without any
additional steps necessary.
> Do you think F
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 09:22:51PM +0200, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> Been a rather intense discussion regarding U-Boot on IRC today, and time
> for some reflections and a little decision to be taken.
>
> In stage3 we do have an u-boot package which provides uboot images for
> pandaboard, trimslice,
> Should Fedora for ARM officially support for some well known boards?
I think it's important to have some easy-to-use installer for a few
popular (and easy to support) ARM platforms.
The rest of the questions are harder to answer ;-)
___
arm mailing l
Been a rather intense discussion regarding U-Boot on IRC today, and time
for some reflections and a little decision to be taken.
In stage3 we do have an u-boot package which provides uboot images for
pandaboard, trimslice, beagleboard and some more. The pandaboard
requires u-boot on the boot media
I created x-loader and u-boot packages for ARM and I don't have time to
be package maintainer.
So I need someone to submit packages to fedora review process and
maintain them in future.
Both packages are tested on my panda board and they are using latest git.
URLs:
https://netst.org/remote-ko
58 matches
Mail list logo
