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
