[U-Boot-Users] tftp problem
Hi all, We're using u-boot 1.0.0 to boot Linux on a Lubbock based platform. We've been able to boot Linux from RAM, with JFFS2 and nfsroot too. But we've a problem with tftp. We know that the tftp server works because we've tested it with other clients. But with tftp in u-boot we're only able to transfer little files (1, 2 Kb).. Which can be the problem?? Newer versions work fine?? Thanks in advance Regards, Sonia
In message A5F3D6A490BAD1118AAE00A0C94C2664034025EA@CORREO you wrote:
We're using u-boot 1.0.0 to boot Linux on a Lubbock based platform. We've
Why are you posting the very same message twice from two different mail addresses?
Please NEVER do this again!!!!
We know that the tftp server works because we've tested it with other clients. But with tftp in u-boot we're only able to transfer little files (1, 2 Kb)..
What happens then? Is there an error mesaage or what? Did you try to debug the problem?
Which can be the problem?? Newer versions work fine??
Ummm... did you try it out? If yes, what was the result? If not, why not???
Wolfgang Denk
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:08:07AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message A5F3D6A490BAD1118AAE00A0C94C2664034025EA@CORREO you wrote:
We're using u-boot 1.0.0 to boot Linux on a Lubbock based platform. We've
Why are you posting the very same message twice from two different mail addresses?
Please NEVER do this again!!!!
We know that the tftp server works because we've tested it with other clients. But with tftp in u-boot we're only able to transfer little files (1, 2 Kb)..
What happens then? Is there an error mesaage or what? Did you try to debug the problem?
Which can be the problem?? Newer versions work fine??
Ummm... did you try it out? If yes, what was the result? If not, why not???
FWIW, I've noticed that the Lubbock SMC_inb macro in drivers/lan9196.h is broken. Take a look at that Lubbock SMC_inb macro definition:
#define SMC_inb(p) ({ \ unsigned int __p = (unsigned int)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS + (p * 4)); \ unsigned int __v = *(volatile unsigned short *)((__p) & ~1); \ if (__p & 1) __v >>= 8; \ else __v &= 0xff; \ __v; })
I believe that definition should be rewritten as follows (ignoring issues of coding style or personal preferences : ):
#define SMC_inb(p) ({ \ unsigned int __p = (unsigned int)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS + ((p) * 4)); \ unsigned int __v = *(volatile unsigned short *)(__p & ~4); \ if (__p & 4) __v >>= 8; \ else __v &= 0xff; \ __v; })
I don't have a Lubbock target so I can't vouch for the accuracy of my assertion. But it clearly seems broken as currently written. Also have a look at the Lubbock kernel lan91c96 support to review those macros there and draw your own conclusions.
I have no idea if this will help with this problem. But it probably won't hurt. : )
HTH!
-- Regards, George
TFTP works. I applied the changes suggested by James Jiao. I've modified the udelay routine in /cpu/pxa/interrupts.c the way he explained and it works. Thank you all for your help Sonia ----- Original Message ----- From: "George G. Davis" davis_g@comcast.net To: "Wolfgang Denk" wd@denx.de Cc: "Martinez Sonia" SMartinez@ikerlan.es; "Sonia Martinez" anexwarrior@hotmail.com; u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] tftp problem
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:08:07AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message A5F3D6A490BAD1118AAE00A0C94C2664034025EA@CORREO you wrote:
We're using u-boot 1.0.0 to boot Linux on a Lubbock based platform.
We've
Why are you posting the very same message twice from two different mail addresses?
Please NEVER do this again!!!!
We know that the tftp server works because we've tested it with other clients. But with tftp in u-boot we're only able to transfer little
files
(1, 2 Kb)..
What happens then? Is there an error mesaage or what? Did you try to debug the problem?
Which can be the problem?? Newer versions work fine??
Ummm... did you try it out? If yes, what was the result? If not, why
not???
FWIW, I've noticed that the Lubbock SMC_inb macro in drivers/lan9196.h is broken. Take a look at that Lubbock SMC_inb macro definition:
#define SMC_inb(p) ({ \ unsigned int __p = (unsigned int)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS + (p * 4)); \ unsigned int __v = *(volatile unsigned short *)((__p) & ~1); \ if (__p & 1) __v >>= 8; \ else __v &= 0xff; \ __v; })
I believe that definition should be rewritten as follows (ignoring issues of coding style or personal preferences : ):
#define SMC_inb(p) ({ \ unsigned int __p = (unsigned int)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS + ((p) * 4)); \ unsigned int __v = *(volatile unsigned short *)(__p & ~4); \ if (__p & 4) __v >>= 8; \ else __v &= 0xff; \ __v; })
I don't have a Lubbock target so I can't vouch for the accuracy of my assertion. But it clearly seems broken as currently written. Also have a look at the Lubbock kernel lan91c96 support to review those macros there and draw your own conclusions.
I have no idea if this will help with this problem. But it probably won't hurt. : )
HTH!
-- Regards, George
participants (4)
-
George G. Davis -
Martinez Sonia -
Sonia Martinez -
Wolfgang Denk