Re: Qi vs U-boot (was Re: QtMoko v30; UBIFS; can't boot)

2010-12-29 Thread giacomo mariani

  Please tell me how to do this! I have no religious bind to Qi. To
  hell
 with minimalism, let us all use the bootloader that is standard,
 smart, configurable and well supported.

 I think easiest way is to use fw_setenv. I rethought, need relatively
 trivial modification to u-boot to support loading plain file to env
 variable with something like 'ext2loadvar location [var]'. But this
 brain-dead by design idea

 The brain-dead idea is not mine :)
 /boot/grub/menu.lst

You can achive a similar result using editUenv.sh from 
http://code.google.com/p/edituenv/ (also based on devirginator).

It is quite rough, but may help. 

Cheers  
   Giacomo 


  

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community


Re: Qi vs U-boot (was Re: QtMoko v30; UBIFS; can't boot)

2010-12-28 Thread Gennady Kupava
Hi, Ivan,

В Втр, 28/12/2010 в 06:04 +0300, Ivan Matveev пишет:
 Lets burn some linux.org.ru style flame!

Hey, such foreword spoils good talk, so i'll try to be short.

 It's also possible to setup u-boot like qi, 'read kernel first from
sd part 1, boot if loads, then try from sd part 2, boot if loads, then
from nand'. All with 10 lines in config file. Just noone need it.

 No one needs the good stuff :).

Cause is that this stuff is not good :)

 Does every FR user have to develop a bootloader?

Process of changing configuration is not development. Process of looking
up something in C sources of Qi is development ;)

 Please tell me how to do this! I have no religious bind to Qi. To hell
with minimalism, let us all use the bootloader that is standard, smart,
configurable and well supported.

I think easiest way is to use fw_setenv. I rethought, need relatively
trivial modification to u-boot to support loading plain file to env
variable with something like 'ext2loadvar location [var]'. But this
brain-dead by design idea require bootloader to support all possible
fses (how does qi reads ubifs for kernel parameters, if it has no
support for ubi?)

 I'm waiting for Radek's comment on this. Qi's sources are not easy, no
stdlib functions.

Local Qi pontiff is Paul Fertser.

 Please do not be offended. I was frustrated by FR suddenly not booting.

It's impossible to offend me with good arguments.

Gennady.


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community


Re: Qi vs U-boot (was Re: QtMoko v30; UBIFS; can't boot)

2010-12-28 Thread Ivan Matveev
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:45:56 +0300
Gennady Kupava g...@bsdmn.com wrote:


  Please tell me how to do this! I have no religious bind to Qi. To
  hell
 with minimalism, let us all use the bootloader that is standard,
 smart, configurable and well supported.
 
 I think easiest way is to use fw_setenv. I rethought, need relatively
 trivial modification to u-boot to support loading plain file to env
 variable with something like 'ext2loadvar location [var]'. But this
 brain-dead by design idea 

The brain-dead idea is not mine :)
/boot/grub/menu.lst

require bootloader to support all possible
 fses (how does qi reads ubifs for kernel parameters, if it has no
 support for ubi?)

No it doesn't require jffs/ubifs support.
The identity-ext2(mtd5, dfu-util calls it factory) NAND partition
contains ext2 fs. 
So on linux runing from NAND

echo /dev/mtdblock5 /boot ext2 defaults  /etc/fstab

Navigate to /boot, edit append-GTA02... 
Natural way for people used to PC bootloader like grub.


___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community


Qi vs U-boot (was Re: QtMoko v30; UBIFS; can't boot)

2010-12-27 Thread Ivan Matveev
Hi Gennady!
Lets burn some linux.org.ru style flame!

I don't want to go back to u-boot.
   
   I disagree - going to Qi is going back, going to u-boot is going
   forward :)
  
  I like Qi's minimalism, automatic setup of many options and text
  config files. 
 
 Automatic setup is done by person who provide you with Qi. If
 someone start supply u-boot_env with distros, u-boot setup will be
 equally automatic.

As always with automatic someone has to build the mechanism. Qi has
it already. Why shell I bother with u-boot numerous(poorly documented)
options? I know u-boot is more configurable, but I just want to  boot.
If I start developing an FR kernel I'l learn u-boot ways. A regular user
wold like a bootloader as configurable as grub, not a set of cryptic
scripts we have with u-boot. 

 It's also possible to setup u-boot like qi, 'read kernel first from sd
 part 1, boot if loads, then try from sd part 2, boot if loads, then
 from nand'. All with 10 lines in config file. Just noone need it.

No one needs the good stuff :).

 What 'text config files' in Qi you talking about? Does it have config
 files at all? If you mean ability to append kernel parameters this not
 like u-boot config files, only 1% of that flexibility.

I think if I 

wget http://www.bsdmn.com/openmoko/uboot/config/environment.in
less environment.in

I will see much more than 1% of kernel parameters in the file.
Can you give an example of a valuable non kernel parameter bootloader
parameter?

 Minimalism? 
1. 
You mean that Qi works only on Freerunner, has no support
 to anything else? 

I do agree that Qi is not as supported as u-boot(thank you for
your advice on u-boot, sincerily). We shell spread word on Qi to make
it more popular and supported and make it an embedded grub.

2. 
 Or that you need to use NOR u-boot to flash
 something to NAND as qi can't do it? 

Decision to have 2 bootloders(NOR and NAND) in FR was a wise one 
and was a result of experience with neo1973 that was easy to brick by
flashing a bad bootloader. With this design one of the bootloaders can
afford to be minimalistic.

3. 
 Or that nothing except kernel
 parameters may be configured without recompilation? 

What else do we(users, application developers) need?

4. 
 Or that it can't  display anything on screen so you have to decode
 errors by amount of blinks? 

If you press power button at the right moment you will have
loglevel=8. You will see kernel debug, not bootloaders. Why should a
user care? Does every FR user have to develop a bootloader?

5. 
 Or that it adds 'quiet' kernel options by default, so you
 can't see boot logs?

See 4. on power button.

  I'v tried u-boot just to be shure.
[...]
  Didn't edit environment.in because don't know what to put there.
 
 You must edit it to boot, mine is only example suitable only for my
 custom setup.

Well, I must edit environment.in. How shell I know what do I put there?
I'm no u-boot expert. Can you provide the catch all u-boot config? That
wold be a good u-boot advocacy.

  From http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/U-boot-gena2x:
[...]
  A press on the power button. FR emits a barely audible click and
  then nothing, the screen stays blank.
 
 This only may happen if you battery discharged or 'default' boot way
 is not setup properly. Try menu with power+aux like described on wiki.

The battery was full. There was no u-boot setup whatsoever only sample
environment.in.
 
 I think qi is NOT reading u-boot_env, so you just had different Qi
 version before.

I'm waiting for Radek's comment on this. Qi's sources are not easy, no
stdlib functions.

In the course of researching the 'no NAND QtMoko' situation I'v tried
the following combinations:

qi-s3c2442-master-hist_3b8513d8b3d9615e.udfu; uImage-v26.bin;
qtmoko-debian-v26.jffs2; did boot OK

qi-v28.ubifs.udfu; uImage-v28.bin; qtmoko-debian-v28.ubi; didn't boot

qi-v30.udfu; uImage-v30.bin; qtmoko-debian-v30.ubi; didn't boot

[...]
   I think it is also possible to make such config that appends
   kernel params load from file on external fs, like in qi, but who
   needs this...
  I think its not external fs that matters but u-boot_env
  format. 
 
 Seem i didn't describe my idea very well. I think it's possible to
 write such env for u-boot, that will read text 'append' portion of
 kernel params like qi does. So, you'll have similar fun of editing
 text files with kernel options, like you have in Qi.

Please tell me how to do this! I have no religious bind to Qi. To hell
with minimalism, let us all use the bootloader that is standard, smart,
configurable and well supported.

Gennady I admire yours contribution to the community. Please do not be
offended. I was frustrated by FR suddenly not booting.

provocative content
Still I like Qi better. Small program that does
only 1 thing is the UNIX way 
/provocative content

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org

Re: Qi vs U-boot (was Re: QtMoko v30; UBIFS; can't boot)

2010-12-27 Thread Ben Thompson
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 06:04:12AM +0300, Ivan Matveev wrote:
 Hi Gennady!
 Lets burn some linux.org.ru style flame!
 
 I don't want to go back to u-boot.

I disagree - going to Qi is going back, going to u-boot is going
forward :)

Hello Everyone

Would I be correct in thinking that we are will all need to use u-boot
anyway one day as Qi is only compatible with the GTA2?

If we are moving to the GTA4 from Dr. N, I suppose we might as well
start dusting off our old u-boot configs and re-learning how it all
works.

By the way, does anyone else have any examples of the environemnt.in
config which they would like to share? I have tried to boot SHR using
Gennady's version but it did not work for me. It seemed to boot the
kernel but X did not load for some reason.

Thanks

Ben

___
Openmoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community