November 2002 - U-Boot

[U-Boot-Users] lkc support for U-Boot My $0.02 worth
by Rod Boyce 08 Nov '02

08 Nov '02

All, I know progress is a thing that cannot be stopped and change is sometimes positive. But my preference is that we stick with the make file configuration approach. It is small easy to add new configurations of either boards or CPUs. What is more when starting out it is easy to follow what is going on with a make file I maybe an old dog who doesn't like change but... if it isn't broken why fix it? Regards, Rod Boyce

3 2

Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] lkc support for U-Boot
by Marius Gröger 07 Nov '02

07 Nov '02

Robert Schwebel <robert(a)schwebel.de> schrieb am 06.11.02 10:36:34: > Comments? Though I tend to be rather conservative with these sorts of enhancements, I hope I will get around to take a look at your stuff. But _please_ promise not to add CML2 support!! This is only a boot-loader, after all. ;-) Regards, Marius. ________________________________________________________________ Keine verlorenen Lotto-Quittungen, keine vergessenen Gewinne mehr! Beim WEB.DE Lottoservice: http://tippen2.web.de/?x=13

4 21

[U-Boot-Users] Re: link ?
by Wolfgang Denk 07 Nov '02

07 Nov '02

Dear Vince, in message <0BE0D2787ABCC64EAD43A8D6CC1BC84506A087(a)Integrity1A.iointegrity.com> you wrote: > > I added a library 'libdiags.a' to ppcboot and just reached a threshold > that I was wondering if you could help me with? ... > ppc_405-ld: ppcboot: Not enough room for program headers (allocated 2, > need 3) I've seen this before, and actually we have the same problem on another board (W7OLMC I think). I haven't found a way yet to fix this. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd(a)denx.de See us @ electronica 2002 in Munich, Nov 12-15, Hall A3, Booth A3.325

1 0

[U-Boot-Users] u-boot eCos
by Tord Andersson 06 Nov '02

06 Nov '02

Hi! Has anyone tried to boot eCos with ppcboot or u-boot? Kind regards, Tord

1 0

Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] lkc support for U-Boot
by Marius Gröger 06 Nov '02

06 Nov '02

Holger Schurig <h.schurig(a)mn-logistik.de> schrieb am 06.11.02 14:24:32: > * only handle config vars that start with CONFIG_ > * has only types like int, string, bool, but not bitmask > > and CONFIG_COMMANDS is a bitmask. Of course one could put ... > If we want to use lkc for this, we have to transfer files like cmd_elf.c from > > #if (CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_ELF) > > into > > #ifdef CONFIG_CMD_ELF And include all default commands in every board's set of config definition. The handy thing about the COMMANDS bitmask was that it made it easy to use the default set of commands. You only had to specify special/exotic commands _on top_ of that. With your configuration system it likely we have to change some semantics here. Regards Marius. ________________________________________________________________ Keine verlorenen Lotto-Quittungen, keine vergessenen Gewinne mehr! Beim WEB.DE Lottoservice: http://tippen2.web.de/?x=13

2 1

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] lkc support for U-Boot
by Robert Schwebel 06 Nov '02

06 Nov '02

Hi, I just had a look at Holger Schurig's lkc configuration support. Here: http://www.pengutronix.de/software/csb226_de.html you'll find a patch which does the following: - add "make menuconfig" and "make xconfig" support based on lkc-1.2 and lxdialog-2.5.46 (targets have been added to toplevel makefile) - the original sources are used, plus a small patch for lkc which can be found in tools/lkc-1.2-u-boot.diff (basically avoids that it claims to be the Linux kernel, plus some path adjustments). This means that we can easily upgrade the system to newer versions of lxdialog and lkc. - lxdialog lives in tools/lxdialog/, lkc in tools/lkc-1.2/. No further files are touched. config.in files have at the moment only been taken from Holger's archive, this had to be extended in the future, and naturally the build system had to be adjusted to _use_ the .config file :-) This approach has the advantage that it is completely independend from the old config system, so both can live in parallel for some time. All the config system does is to generate a .config file from the config.in descriptions. This .config file can be used in the board support code; old boards which don't use them can do what they did before, new ones can use it. Comments? Robert -- Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry Braunschweiger Str. 79, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 Phone: +49-5121-28619-0 | Fax: +49-5121-28619-4 Visit us at the SPS/IPC/Drives 2002 in Nuernberg! Hall 5, Booth 154 +++ Please contact us for details.

2 2

Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] lkc support for U-Boot
by Marius Gröger 06 Nov '02

06 Nov '02

Robert Schwebel <robert(a)schwebel.de> schrieb am 06.11.02 11:47:20: > > I'm currently porting the ruleset of another project, and it seems to be > a _great_ progress over the old config language. Fair enough. I was afraid it would cause more trouble than benefit, but with a real-world case at hand thats proves me wrong, forget what I said. I haven't been following up lately on the CML2 stuff, but it's good to hear it's dead as far as the kernel is concerned. Regards, Marius. ________________________________________________________________ Keine verlorenen Lotto-Quittungen, keine vergessenen Gewinne mehr! Beim WEB.DE Lottoservice: http://tippen2.web.de/?x=13

1 0

Re: [U-Boot-Users] u-boot compilation
by Marius Gröger 06 Nov '02

06 Nov '02

Robert Schwebel <robert(a)schwebel.de> schrieb am 06.11.02 10:03:44: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:23:52AM +0100, Marius Gröger wrote: > > What do you mean here - what else than stage 1 can a cross compiler > > be?! > > Normally when you build a toolchain you first have to build a compiler > which is able to work without glibc headers (needs only to have C > support). Then you use it to build glibc and afterwards you recompile > your compiler with glibc support and whatever languages you need. Gotcha... I thought you were referring to gcc's terminology of "stages". There, anything higher thant stage 1 is compiled by itself which obviously won't work cross. What you call stage1 is sometimes (and in Elinos, too) called a "bootstrap gcc". However: u-boot should be compilable with such a bootstrap gcc, as it should not be dependent on glibc. (It is bad enogh for it to be so dependent on several Linux headers, but that is a compromise to be able to reuse code from Linux - we had that before). Regards, Marius. ________________________________________________________________ Keine verlorenen Lotto-Quittungen, keine vergessenen Gewinne mehr! Beim WEB.DE Lottoservice: http://tippen2.web.de/?x=13

1 0

Re: [U-Boot-Users] u-boot compilation
by Marius Gröger 06 Nov '02

06 Nov '02

Robert Schwebel <robert(a)schwebel.de> schrieb am 05.11.02 21:22:47: > > i have used the toolchain 2.95.3 from www.arm.linux.org.uk. I have > > installed in in /usr/local/arm like discribed in the README file.. > > My impression when I looked at this toolchain for the last time was that > it is only a stage 1 toolchain - at least this is what the build script > generates. What do you mean here - what else than stage 1 can a cross compiler be?! Regards, Marius. ________________________________________________________________ Keine verlorenen Lotto-Quittungen, keine vergessenen Gewinne mehr! Beim WEB.DE Lottoservice: http://tippen2.web.de/?x=13

2 1

Re: [U-Boot-Users] u-boot compilation
by Robert Schwebel 06 Nov '02

06 Nov '02

Andre, Please include the list in your replies. On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:40:03PM +0100, André Stierenberg wrote: > i have used the toolchain 2.95.3 from www.arm.linux.org.uk. I have > installed in in /usr/local/arm like discribed in the README file.. My impression when I looked at this toolchain for the last time was that it is only a stage 1 toolchain - at least this is what the build script generates. > then i did a make lubbock_config and make all i n the u-boot direkctory. > At some point there comes a errer message that the file mach-types.h is > missing what is needed by hardware.h in the toolchain. Could you cut-and-paste the error message plus some context? It's a little bit difficult to find out what happens if you don't give us more information. Robert -- Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry Braunschweiger Str. 79, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 Phone: +49-5121-28619-0 | Fax: +49-5121-28619-4 Visit us at the SPS/IPC/Drives 2002 in Nuernberg! Hall 5, Booth 154 +++ Please contact us for details.

2 1