Grant Likely schrieb:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Timur Tabi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Wolfgang Denk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the DTB can be at any
flash location, you can for example have a fall-back version which is
used to bring up U-Boot in a
Timur Tabi a écrit :
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better to just not depend on the DTB at all for basic operation. ie.
don't brick the board if the DTB is unavailable.
Is it even possible to have a recovery mode U-Boot that is not tied
to the
On 8/3/08, Wolfgang Denk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
What about creating a tool that parses a device tree and creates (or
updates) the board header file? This will retain compatibility with
other platforms, clean up the existing header files
Jon Smirl wrote:
BTW, how do know which DT to dynamically interpret? If you are
installing a universal uboot you still are going to have to install a
different DT in each model. If you're installing a different DT you
might as well install a different uboot.
That's what I was thinking, too.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Why? One address is as good as any other.
I think statistically you'll find that that isn't true. A built-in DTB is
more
likely to be present on the flash than an external DTB would be.
Please present the data your statistics is based on.
Best
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Why? One address is as good as any other.
I think statistically you'll find that that isn't true. A built-in DTB is
more
likely to be present on the flash than an external DTB would be.
Please present the data your statistics
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
What about creating a tool that parses a device tree and creates (or
updates) the board header file? This will retain compatibility with
other platforms, clean up the existing header files (they won't need
to contain as much information), and
On 8/3/08, Wolfgang Denk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
What about creating a tool that parses a device tree and creates (or
updates) the board header file? This will retain compatibility with
other platforms, clean up the existing header files
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
No, no, no. The DTB *must not* be included with the U-Boot image. It
shall always be kept separate so we canupdate it independently -
otherwise you lose a lot of advantages.
A DTB is only about 8K. I was thinking that a user supplied one
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Wolfgang Denk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the DTB can be at any
flash location, you can for example have a fall-back version which is
used to bring up U-Boot in a minimal configuration for recovery mode
if the new DTB fails to work.
I think that a
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Timur Tabi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Wolfgang Denk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the DTB can be at any
flash location, you can for example have a fall-back version which is
used to bring up U-Boot in a minimal configuration
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
If the DTB can be at any
flash location, you can for example have a fall-back version which is
used to bring up U-Boot in a minimal configuration for recovery mode
if the new DTB fails to work.
I think that a recovery DTB would have to be
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better to just not depend on the DTB at all for basic operation. ie.
don't brick the board if the DTB is unavailable.
Is it even possible to have a recovery mode U-Boot that is not tied
to the specific board it's built for?
Scott Wood wrote:
Ben Warren wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of header
files, #defines, and #ifdefs...
In many ways, yes. But are you an average Joe or a Linux kernel
On 7/29/08, Timur Tabi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
from config.h. I was wondering
Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I agree, in general I would hope u-boot would be able to still
boot w/o the device tree information (might be crippled, but you could
recover).
How about keeping a fail-safe blob around somewhere?
Haavard
Ben Warren schrieb:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Warren wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of
header
files, #defines, and #ifdefs...
In
Wolfgang Grandegger schrieb:
André Schwarz wrote:
Ben Warren schrieb:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Scott Wood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Warren wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled
Kumar Gala wrote:
Our main interest in using FDT for U-Boot is to make it dynamically
configurable having just one image for various variants of the
hardware. Replacing config.h completely seems overkill to me (and
will not even be possible).
Agreed. I'm not suggesting replacing
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of
header files, #defines, and #ifdefs...
Especially since the various config files
1) often define the CONFIG_ and CFG_ options is different order
2) are
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
from config.h. I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
doing this.
What
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
from config.h. I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
doing this.
One question I have is how does (or should) u-boot identify where to
find
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
from config.h. I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
doing this.
This
Ben Warren wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
from config.h. I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Warren wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:07 AM, Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:07:49AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
from config.h. I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
doing this.
One
Ben Warren wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of header
files, #defines, and #ifdefs...
In many ways, yes. But are you an average Joe or a Linux kernel
propellerhead?
Is u-boot
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Warren wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I find a device tree much easier to figure out than a tangled mess of
header
files, #defines, and #ifdefs...
In many ways, yes.
Kumar Gala wrote:
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead of
from config.h. I was wondering if anyone has actually looked at
doing this.
Last year I brought up the topic twice:
On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:07:49AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF was
the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree instead
of
from config.h. I was wondering if
On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
One topic that come up during OLS in discussions and u-boot BOF
was the idea of driving u-boot configuration from a device tree
instead of from config.h. I was wondering if anyone has
actually looked at
Ben Warren wrote:
Uh, yeah. I like the idea of a central repo for hardware info, and
the device tree concept is good. My point is that the syntax, while
concise and exact, can be intimidating. Just look at the amount of
traffic on the mailing lists of people that don't understand what all
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
In principle I like the idea of having configuration retrieved from
the device tree blob, but the idea of reflashing the blob in the
context of u-boot scares me. In particular, if u-boot depends too
much on the presence of
33 matches
Mail list logo
