Re: bringing up a 2GB nitrogen6x
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:03:33AM +0100, peter green wrote:
> I got a 2GB nitrogen6x today and I want to get it running some
> debianish armhf system (preferablly wheezy but i'd also consider
> precise and maybe jessie or newer ubuntu versions acceptable) with
> all the ram visible.
In general I think using an Ubuntu kernel and a Debian userland is
the surest way of getting up and running quickly.
> First try: boot it with the supplied SD card, it didn't seem to
> finish booting and it appeared to be an embedded distro anyway (init
> messages mentioned busybox iirc) so out that went.
Why? I feel the same way but I just wonder why we have a penchant
for insisting on Debian? Is it the familiarity?
> Second try: ubuntu oneiric "image"* from boundary. Initially this
> failed to boot being unable to find "6x_bootscript", I tried
> renaming the bootscript from 6q_bootscript to 6x_bootscript but that
> didn't work. I then tried replacing the boot script with one from http://boundarydevices.com/boot-scripts-for-main-line-u-boot-on-i-mx6/
> it booted and recognised all the ram but it turned out to be armel
> which is unacceptable to me, I want armhf and I'd preffer debian to
> ubuntu.
I've spoken to folks at Texas Instruments who state that hardware
floating point does not speed up 3D graphics that much. Why are
you so interested in armhf?
> Third try: Try and manually cobble together a debian wheezy armhf
> image with the kernel from the above oneiric image. That failed with
> division by zero errors in the kernel.
>
> Fourth try: Google for "nitrogen6x wheezy armhf", this took me to
> http://www.armhf.com/index.php/boards/nitrogen6x-sabre/ , the image
> from there booted fine but only saw 1GB of ram. Further
> investigation shows that the boot process involves two versions of
> u-boot. The first (presumablly loaded from the nitrogen6x's boot
> flash) sees 2GB but the second (presumablly loaded from the SD card)
> only sees 1GB.
>
> Any idea how to get arround this and get wheezy running on the board
> with a reasonablly recent kernel and all the ram visible.
Sheesh. I wish I had advice, but I'm gonna punt on this one.
Cheers,
Jeremiah
Reply to: