RE: [U-Boot-Users] U-Boot on MPC8280
Hi Wolfgang, Do you think that the Windriver equipment ( e.g. VisionPROBE ) is of low quality?
When looking at the demos, they have been looking a bit sharper than e.g. the BDI2000.
Regards // Matias
-----Original Message----- From: u-boot-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:u-boot-users-admin@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Wolfgang Denk Sent: den 7 januari 2004 14:58 To: sudhakar rajashekhara Cc: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] U-Boot on MPC8280
Hello,
in message 20040107131759.31653.qmail@web10602.mail.yahoo.com you wrote:
I am trying to port U-boot-1.0.0 on a board which has MPC8280 processor. I have started with RAM boot. I am
As pointed out many times before this is probably not a good idea unless you know exactly what you are doing and how U-Boot is working. If this is one of your first ports of U-Boot and/or if you don;t know the processor really well I recommend to use the standard way of booting from flash instead.
using VisionPROBE utility to debug. One of the line
Sincere condolences.
This line is supposed to move the contents of MSR register to R5 register. I am seeing the content of these two registers before the execution of the above statement and after the execution, using "DR" command. But I feel that the above statement is not executed properly as the content of R5 register is same even after the above line is executed (in my case 40) whereas MSR is all ZEROes. Why is it happening so? I
Maybe your debugger is not working as expected...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Dear Matias,
in message 37FB7AA6F5F9814FB634A7BF4C35A6F501213D91@ESEALNT442.al.sw.ericsson.se you wrote:
Do you think that the Windriver equipment ( e.g. VisionPROBE ) is of low quality?
First of all I have to point out that I don't have any first-hand experience with the Vision* tools. My statement is based on the collected reports of users of these tools for PPCBoot, U-Boot, and Linux debugging.
If you search the mailing list you will find many reports from people who ran into problems using the Vision* tools. With U-Boot there are two typical problems: getting the images loaded on the target system, and debugging after relocation to RAM.
I don't think it is low quality. Actually I think the tools are high quality, but they are somewhat limited in operation.
When looking at the demos, they have been looking a bit sharper than e.g. the BDI2000.
The main difference is that the BDI2000 is just a debug interface, and the quality of the total system depends on the quality of the debugger frontend. If you are used to working with GDB / DDD / Insight etc. this is all you need.
The Vision* tools provide a complex solution, with some restrictions (please correct me if I'm wrong):
* The tools seem to have problems understanding and loading certain image formats; obviously you cannot simply use a binary image to avoid all interpretation of internal data structures, and the ELF loader loads only the segments it knows about (which may cause problems with certain Linux images),
* The tools are limited in the way how they support the MMU. AFAIK only a static mapping is supported, which is not sufficient to really debug a system like Linux where you have to deal with dynamic page tables, dynamically loaded device drivers and modules etc.
Maybe the BDI2000 is not as fancy to use, but at least it does a solid job in these areas, and simply works.
Other things to keep in mind:
* I have been told that the price for the Linux version of the tools is significantly higher (2 x ?) than the windoze version. The BDI2000 in contrast is not only cheaper, but also OS independend: it will run on any system where you find a GDB.
* Note that you can buy firmware versions of the BDI2000 for most well-known debuggers, which might give you the same "sharp look" as Vision* - but I never used any such tools (because usually they will cost a lot of $$ and run only under Windoze which I don;t touch).
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (2)
-
Matias Sundman (AL/EAB) -
Wolfgang Denk