BOOT_TARGET pImage & uImage ???

Hi,

is the there any particular reason why the BOOT_TARGETS "pImage" and "uImage" for
the famous boot loader PPCBoot and its successor U-Boot are still not supported.
Neither by linux_2_4_devel. Nor by the vanilla.

Thanks,

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:16:29PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:

is the there any particular reason why the BOOT_TARGETS "pImage" and
"uImage" for
the famous boot loader PPCBoot and its successor U-Boot are still not
supported.
Neither by linux_2_4_devel. Nor by the vanilla.

For a third time:
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/8358/2002/11/0/10241415/

It's not too late for 2.4.23, yet...

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Tom Rini wrote:

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:16:29PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:

quoted

is the there any particular reason why the BOOT_TARGETS "pImage" and
"uImage" for
the famous boot loader PPCBoot and its successor U-Boot are still not
supported.
Neither by linux_2_4_devel. Nor by the vanilla.

For a third time:
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/8358/2002/11/0/10241415/

I have to admit that I don't understand what you're describing there. I am afraid
nobody else did. Otherwise someone would realized it by now...

Sorry though.

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Here  is the patch I have been using myself. I am embarrassed to say that I 
was the 2nd person to ask and I forgot to post the patch for inclusion. I 
don;t have a version for 2.5/6 but this works for 2.4 (based on 
2.4.22-pre10). Tom, I am not sure this is exactly what yoou wanted when we 
initially talked about it so let me know if you would like a better method.


Thanks
Brian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/abidmxLCz0u+Ko8RApSeAJ9FwwirTLp5lYIeoVwOs3olE11CDACeM7Zs
oiWo6RqxHhkLubrg8YbELqI=
=s7cT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:

Tom Rini wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:16:29PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:

quoted

is the there any particular reason why the BOOT_TARGETS "pImage" and
"uImage" for
the famous boot loader PPCBoot and its successor U-Boot are still not
supported.
Neither by linux_2_4_devel. Nor by the vanilla.

For a third time:
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/8358/2002/11/0/10241415/

I have to admit that I don't understand what you're describing there. I am
afraid nobody else did. Otherwise someone would realized it by now...

If I'm making requests and rambling at the same time, can people please
speek up sooner?  I won't mind, really.

What I want is three things:
1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will
never run into a 'cannot execute' problem.  My suggestion is to have the
Makefile do a:
@chmod +x mkimage.sh
Or so.  In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you,
automagically, on .sh files I believe.  For 2.4, you must handle this
explicitly.
2) Do we really need 'pImage' and 'uImage' or can we just have 'uImage'
?
3) I really (really!) want a patch for 2.4 and 2.5/2.6 at the same time.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

What I want is three things:
1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will
never run into a 'cannot execute' problem.  My suggestion is to have the
Makefile do a:
@chmod +x mkimage.sh
Or so.  In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you,
automagically, on .sh files I believe.  For 2.4, you must handle this
explicitly.

Altough messy, I make this happen in the patch I supply. I can change it to do
the straight chmod in the scrip[ts directory if that is cleaner.

2) Do we really need 'pImage' and 'uImage' or can we just have 'uImage'
?

I think uImage is enough. Wolfgang strongly discourages any use of PPCBoot
these days and it just seems silly.

3) I really (really!) want a patch for 2.4 and 2.5/2.6 at the same time.

This was one of the reasons for not supplying the patch previously.
I will try to pull together a 2.5/2.6 patch but I have not worked under
2.5/2.6 at all. When I initially did the 2.4 patch I pulled the 2.5 tree but
I didn't have time to understand the layout. Also, unless someone has a board
that will boot a uImage target I can only supply an untested patch. I'll take
some time and see if I can pull something I am comfortable with in the next
few days. Is there anyone who could help with testing?

Thanks
Brian


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

What I want is three things:
1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will
never run into a 'cannot execute' problem.  My suggestion is to have the
Makefile do a:
@chmod +x mkimage.sh
Or so.  In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you,
automagically, on .sh files I believe.  For 2.4, you must handle this
explicitly.

In 2.6 you need to locate the script in scripts/ and add it to the
makefile to make this happen. Do not do that.

Best way IMO is to use:
$(CONFIG_SHELL) mkimage.sh

This works in both 2.4 and 2.6.

2) Do we really need 'pImage' and 'uImage' or can we just have 'uImage'

Please kill pImage. PPCBOOT is dead, we shall focus on "Das U-boot".

	Sam

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 02:22:28PM -0400, Brian Waite wrote:

quoted

What I want is three things:
1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will
never run into a 'cannot execute' problem. My suggestion is to have
the Makefile do a:
@chmod +x mkimage.sh
Or so. In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you,
automagically, on .sh files I believe. For 2.4, you must handle this
explicitly.

Altough messy, I make this happen in the patch I supply. I can change
it to do the straight chmod in the scrip[ts directory if that is
cleaner.

I think what your patch does is the 2.6 logic, so that's probably best.

quoted

2) Do we really need 'pImage' and 'uImage' or can we just have
'uImage' ?

I think uImage is enough. Wolfgang strongly discourages any use of
PPCBoot these days and it just seems silly.

That what I figured at this point.

quoted

3) I really (really!) want a patch for 2.4 and 2.5/2.6 at the same
time.

This was one of the reasons for not supplying the patch previously. I
will try to pull together a 2.5/2.6 patch but I have not worked under
2.5/2.6 at all. When I initially did the 2.4 patch I pulled the 2.5
tree but I didn't have time to understand the layout. Also, unless
someone has a board that will boot a uImage target I can only supply
an untested patch. I'll take some time and see if I can pull something
I am comfortable with in the next few days. Is there anyone who could
help with testing?

'Untested' is fine here, since all you have to do to test is have the
'uImage' target work.  A minimal config based on arch/ppc/defconfig
should suffice for this.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 09:52:29AM -0400, Brian Waite wrote:

Here  is the patch I have been using myself. I am embarrassed to say that I
was the 2nd person to ask and I forgot to post the patch for inclusion. I
don;t have a version for 2.5/6 but this works for 2.4 (based on
2.4.22-pre10). Tom, I am not sure this is exactly what yoou wanted when we
initially talked about it so let me know if you would like a better method.

That looks alright.  I've got one comment:
[snip]

Add this to the clean target, and then don't rm it at the end of
'uImage' so that we only 'build' this once.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 08:26:54PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

quoted

What I want is three things:
1) The 'mkimage' target must be done in such a fashion that it will
never run into a 'cannot execute' problem. My suggestion is to have
the Makefile do a:
@chmod +x mkimage.sh
Or so. In 2.5/2.6, the build system will handle this for you,
automagically, on .sh files I believe. For 2.4, you must handle this
explicitly.

In 2.6 you need to locate the script in scripts/ and add it to the
makefile to make this happen. Do not do that.

There's an arguement for putting this in scripts/, and that is that
U-BOOT is not a PPC-specific bootrom anymore, as it looks like you well
know. :)

Best way IMO is to use:
$(CONFIG_SHELL) mkimage.sh

Brain, how about this for your patch for 2.4 at least (if we can't
convince Sam to put mkimage.sh into scripts/) :)

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:33:57AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:

quoted

In 2.6 you need to locate the script in scripts/ and add it to the
makefile to make this happen. Do not do that.

There's an arguement for putting this in scripts/, and that is that
U-BOOT is not a PPC-specific bootrom anymore, as it looks like you well
know. :)

You got me wrong (read: I did not express it clear).
What I do not wani't is to use scripts/Makefile to set the exucutable
bit. I'm perfectly fine with having the script in scripts/.

Actually thats the only suitable place, since it will be used by ARM
as well (I assume).

	Sam

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/