Re: DTBs in cd images, kexec & installer testing
Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 08:57:15AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:29:39 -0700
>> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 02:15:16PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:48:54 +0100
>> > > Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> > > ... and because some boards still don't tftp boot in a sane way
>> > > (imx53). i.e. there is no bootz command on the u-boot I have on the
>> > > imx53 by default.
>> >
>> > I've been enabling things like bootz and ext4 support in recently
>> > added boards in Debian's u-boot, I can look into enabling for the
>> > mx53loco board if that would be helpful, although it sounds like
>> > you're using whatever u-boot is shipped with the boards?
>>
>> Yes, LAVA needs clearer support for the bootloader itself, but in my
>> home lab I'm free to change bootloaders around. When you say Debian's
>> u-boot, how are you anticipating that to be deployed on the imx53? Are
>> you describing the u-boot inside the Debian Installer ISO images or a
>> particular build/package of u-boot for iMX53?
>
> I'm referring to the u-boot package, which includes the mx53loco build of a
> u-boot image:
>
> https://packages.qa.debian.org/u/u-boot.html
>
> Maybe mx53loco is not the iMX53 board you're referring to?
[ slightly off-topic]
fwiw, I fear "loco" name should not be used at all. One should rather
use imx53qsb or imx53qsb-r (for this one, the dts is imx53qsrb in the
kernel). They're basically the same board but with different PMIC which
is a big difference.
About the "loco" name, I think I've read one some mailing list it was
the name of the prototype/board which eventually became the imx53qsb
later so there may be some (smallish?) HW differences between "loco" and
imx53qsb.
Arnaud
Reply to: