December 2006 - U-Boot

[U-Boot-Users] Sequence of Xilinx ML403/PPC
by S. Egbert 28 Dec '06

28 Dec '06

Awesome... Got U-boot 1.1.4 working on a Xilinx ML403 (PPC 405) evaluation board with our custom core. Next for this planning stage, I'm trying to juggle 'leap-frogging' memory mapping between the first-loader (Xilinx SREC bootloader in firmware), second loader (U-boot 1.1.4) and Linux 2.4 OS. Firstly, we started with Xilinx's SREC (bootloader.c) bootloader (I know, I know, SREC is space consuming) and plan to replace this first bootloader with an ELF or pseudo-binary version later after everything-else is checked out. Planning-wise, I envisioned that such a bring-up memory overlaying sequence would be something like this: 1. Xilinx bootloader.c reads SREC from 16-bit flash and decode/verify/copies to lowest RAM (0000_0000). Then transfers control to 0000_0100. 2. U-boot starts up and relocate itself to MONITOR region which is in the highest RAM region of 01F0_0000. 3. U-boot Scripting occurs which copies Linux OS from flash into where? Next highest or lowest portion of RAM? Is it dependent on whether dual-stage vmlinux.initrd or single-stage vmlinux is used or not? At power-up, with U-Boot 1.1.4 being unusually low-RAM-based before starting up (instead of executing straight out of ROM), I noticed that despite being relocated to MONITOR (higher RAM) region, the PIT exception vector appears to be active in 0000_10c0-ish. Despite this RAM-to-RAM relocation, this "mtest" clobbering of the 0000_10C0 region caused Machine Exception error whenever I attempt to perform memory test over this supposedly former exception vector region. I thought that the objective during U-boot relocation was to ensure a completely discontinued RAM region (formerly occupied by U-boot ROM-based session). A hard and easy questions to the esteemed and avid readers of u-boot-users mailing list... 1. Where do I go from there with regard to the 0000_1000 (PIT_EXCEPTION). Isn't the PIT specific to Motorola 8xx-series (this here is a PPC 405). What exception did the lib_ppc/start.S/trap_init() exactly skipped? Skipped an exception mentioned vaguely in this source code vaguely. Do I need to tweak the trap_init() some more to relocate these untransfered exception vectors into the high MONITOR region? 2. And lastly, do I go high or low for Linux OS? Thank you, S. Egbert

7 13

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Avoid assigning PCI resources from zero address
by Sergei Shtylyov 27 Dec '06

27 Dec '06

If a PCI IDE card happens to get a zero address assigned to it, the Linux IDE core complains and IDE drivers fails to work. Also, assigning zero to a BAR was illegal according to PCI 2.1 (the later revisions seem to have excluded the sentence about "0" being considered an invalid address) -- so, use a reasonable starting value of 0x1000 (that's what the most Linux archs are using). Alternatively, one might have fixed the calls to pci_set_region() individually (some code even seems to have taken care of this issue) but that would have been a lot more work. :-) Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov(a)ru.mvista.com> drivers/pci_auto.c | 7 ++++++- 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: u-boot/drivers/pci_auto.c =================================================================== --- u-boot.orig/drivers/pci_auto.c +++ u-boot/drivers/pci_auto.c @@ -34,7 +34,12 @@ void pciauto_region_init(struct pci_region* res) { - res->bus_lower = res->bus_start; + /* + * Avoid allocating PCI resources from address 0 -- this is illegal + * according to PCI 2.1 and moreover, this is known to cause Linux IDE + * drivers to fail. Use a reasonable starting value of 0x1000 instead. + */ + res->bus_lower = res->bus_start ? res->bus_start : 0x1000; } void pciauto_region_align(struct pci_region *res, unsigned long size)

1 0

[U-Boot-Users] An expert in data and converged networks, Smart Com, headquartered in Slovenia, was able to draw on its market knowledge in the region to help Ciena tap into the market.
by Livingston R. Montague 26 Dec '06

26 Dec '06

1 0

[U-Boot-Users] U-Boot allocating PCI I/O space from 0 (Was: pata_sl82c105 can not reserve IO region)
by Sergei Shtylyov 26 Dec '06

26 Dec '06

Hello. Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >>I don't think that is the problem. pci_request_regions() handles all >>this internally. It is incorrect for me to not request BAR 5 >>if present as nobody else should use that resource with my driver loaded. >>The underlying problem appears to be that PPC64 isn't setting up the >>resources properly (at least as viewed by the pci core code). If a >>resource is not set up then pci_request_resource() correctly handles >>it .. except on PPC64. You have a resource at zero with a length and >>type. PPC64 is not reporting to the upper layers that the resource was >>not allocated. It is reporting that the resource *was* allocated, and at a >>bogus address of zero. >>If you trust the firmware that is fine, but you need to report the truth, >>at which point pci_request_resources() will work correctly. > We don't have a choice but to trust the firmware on those machines. We > can't assign things ourselves on most of them for various reasons (in > many cases, the hypervisor won't let us). > So you suggest that I clear resource->flags in that case ? > I think part of the problem is a firmware bug in that the firmware data > actually decodes to BAR 5 is assigned to address 0 ... I suppose we can > consider that address 0 is never valid on those machines and consider > that as unassigned but it's a bit dodgy.. Or maybe a PCI quirk in the > pSeries code would be best. Well, I'm having a very related issue with the U-Boot on MPC85xx: recently I've noticed that it started allocating PCI I/O space from 0 (while the older versions started from 0x1000). The IDE core can't tolerate this, giving me such messages on bootup: PDC20269: inconsistent baseregs (BIOS) for port 0, skipping when I have Promise Ultra133TX2 card inserted into PCI alone. I've looked thru the U-Boot sources and commit history but failed to locate the change that led to this... WBR, Sergei

1 2

[U-Boot-Users] Spansion flash fix broke drivers/cfi_flash.c
by Sergei Shtylyov 26 Dec '06

26 Dec '06

Hello. I'm getting these errors compiling this file: cfi_flash.c: In function ‘flash_detect_cfi’: cfi_flash.c:1152: error: ‘flash_offset_cfi’ undeclared (first use in this function) cfi_flash.c:1152: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once cfi_flash.c:1152: error: for each function it appears in.) cfi_flash.c:1152: error: ‘cfi_offset’ undeclared (first use in this function) After looking at the recent commits, it seems that the commit d784fdb05900ada3686d5778783e1fb328e9fb66 was incomplete, so to speak... WBR, Sergei

1 0

[U-Boot-Users] How to setup interrupt handler within u-boot
by Andrew Zhukov 26 Dec '06

26 Dec '06

Hello community, I'd like u-boot's "mtest" to run under hardware interrupts, to make memory test harder. The silly question is the name and syntax of the call, which set the irq routine under arm (I've got at91rm9200dk)? (This is not "irq_interrupt_request") Regards

1 0

[U-Boot-Users] 1.1.6 at91 based board dataflash copy panic.
by Raúl Sánchez Siles 26 Dec '06

26 Dec '06

Hello all, We are trying u-boot 1.1.6 on a customised at91rm9200 board. The main features are dataflash, 32MB and networking with DM9161. We have been using u-boot 1.1.4 quite well now, but we would like to test 1.1.6. Kernel boots ok, but we have found a problem. When we do a cp from the dataflash to ram like this: cp.b $(kerneladdr) 0x21600000 0x1 where kerneladdr is 0xC0040000 we have the following: data abort Resetting CPU ... and the board hangs, we have to power off and then on. The funny thing is that if we go through the usual boot procedure, the board boots linux as expected and then everything works ok. I would like to debug this situation, so I tried to uncomment the -DDEBUG on the config.mk file and rebuild u-boot again. Also tried the same adding some lines like #define #DEBUG_xxx 1 in the board config file, but I was unable to get more verbose messages. I would appreciate some help to find the bug or understand what's happenning. If you need any more information I could provide, just ask. Thanks and regards. -- Raúl Sánchez Siles

1 0

[U-Boot-Users] uninhabitable self-satisfied
by Shepard N. Hannah 25 Dec '06

25 Dec '06

1 0

[U-Boot-Users] Download notification
by Tag. Ask 25 Dec '06

25 Dec '06

1 0

[U-Boot-Users] 19 on the Breathalyzer, they "threw the book" at her, hitting her with six different charges.
by Christiana Hahn 24 Dec '06

24 Dec '06

Due to these increasingly complex laws, DUI defense has become a specialty. Amesbury Police Dept. 22 on the breathalyzer. " As he stammered to answer, the jury got the point. They found my client not guilty in 15 minutes. At trial, I asked the officer, "Exactly how wide was that imaginary line? Then he fled the scene and registered a . The jury didn't agree: they acquitted him after deliberating less than 15 minutes. Although his prior offense was just over the ten year "lookback" period, I convinced the Judge to give him a chance to be treated as a first offender. They found my client not guilty in 15 minutes. His driving record was so bad that if he was found responsible of even 1 additional charge he would have had no chance for a work license. At trial, I asked the officer, "Exactly how wide was that imaginary line? Then I handed him an Order to sign restoring my client's license despite the 3 year loss from the RMV for refusing the Breath test. I found the one and only Massachusetts case correctly addressing the crucial, complex pharmacological issue. Despite a criminal record, I arranged a deal where 4 of the charges were dropped outright on the first Court date, allowing him to get a work license 3 days later. My client's arresting officer forgot his card and used another officer's, then wrote his name in by hand on the computer printout. Result: Not guilty after trial. When caught, she admitted she was drunk. Result: the Police immediately wrote my client a letter stating they would return his license and admitting the error. Result: the DA dropped the OUI charges on the very next Court date. The Judge said on the bench he was "aghast" at the practice, suppressed my client's answers and instructed the police to discontinue such practices. Although his prior offense was just over the ten year "lookback" period, I convinced the Judge to give him a chance to be treated as a first offender. " Then I demonstrated the 2 sobriety tests in front of the jury, pointed out they were done at 1 AM on the fog line of a highway with CARS SPEEDING BY just 2-3 feet away. Also charged marijuana and cocaine possession, each carried an additional one year license loss. He signed that too and my client's license was restored the same day. I prepared a chart for trial, met with the Judge in his chambers and made our case. " As he stammered to answer, the jury got the point. Amesbury Police Dept.

1 0