[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Cubox i2ultra does not boot with Debian u-boot



On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 01:39:09PM +0200, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> At the end, it turned out that Debian u-boot does not work for the cubox-
> i2ultra. The u-boot SPL is not started on the cubox-i2ultra (i.e. no outputs 
> on the serial console, no red front light).

Thanks for testing! Sorry to hear the results aren't great.


> I checked on the cubox irc channel with rabeeh:
> 
> [12:36] <rabeeh> _rd: i think the best way to achieve things here is -
> [12:36] <rabeeh> 1. clone - https://github.com/SolidRun/u-boot-imx6
> [12:36] <rabeeh> 2. compare board/solidrun of our tree with the patched debian 
> tree
> [12:36] <rabeeh> 3. create an additional patch
> [12:37] <rabeeh> notice that the master of https://github.com/SolidRun/u-boot-imx6 already supports ALL of CuBox-i and HummingBoard boards
> [12:38] <rabeeh> jnettlet mentioned to me that u-boot finally accepted i.mx6 
> SPL patchset; due to that the CuBox-i and HummingBoard patches can be 
> upstreamed
> 
> Is the debian u-boot 
> 
> http://sources.debian.net/src/u-boot/2014.07~rc4+dfsg1-1/debian/patches/cubox-support.diff

The main three patches are:

  spl-sata-support.diff
  imx6-spl-support.diff
  cubox-support.diff

A brief glance at those patches suggests the other cubox-i variants should be
supported in theory.


> supposed to be uptodate or are there things from solid-run missing?

They're adapted from the SolidRun u-boot-imx6 tree, but I don't think recent
updates from SolidRun's branch have been applied. It is a bit difficult, as
their version is based on 2013.10-rc4, while Debian is following upstream with
2014.04 and 2014.07-rc4.

But yes, 2014.07-rc4 appears to include support for SPL on imx6, although the
only board using it is gw_ventana. It might be feasible to re-work the cubox-i
patches to use the upstream support, and eventually get the patches upstream.


live well,
  vagrant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: