Bug#739976: add device support: mirabox
Hi,
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 02:42 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 14:41 +0100, Jasmin Schnatterbeck wrote:
> > Package: flash-kernel
> > Version: 3.13
> > Severity: important
> >
> > The device DB is missing support for the Mirabox.
> >
> > Proposal:
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Perhaps you could also add some information to
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianOn ?
>
The process is very similar to the one of the Dreamplug - may I can
integrate this as soon as kernel support/package is determined:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=739972
> > Machine: Globalscale Mirabox
> > Kernel-Flavors: armmp
> > DTB-Id: armada-370-mirabox.dtb
> > DTB-Append: yes
>
> Is this really required on new platform like this?
>
> I would expect that a newish system would have a u-boot which supports
> FDT natively rather that via appending. Does loading the dtb at some
> address and adding that address as a third argument to the "bootz" or
> "bootm" command work?
>
> On the other hand you say the u-boot is quite old so maybe this is
> correct, I just wanted to check that you didn't just copy this bit from
> an older platform.
yes, unfortunately the bootloader is old and does not support FDT.
May there will be a DT-capable bootloader from the manufacturer in the
future, but I am not sure about that.
>
> > U-Boot-Kernel-Address: 0x00008000
> > U-Boot-Initrd-Address: 0x0
> > Boot-Device: /dev/sdb1
> > Boot-Kernel-Path: uImage
> > Boot-Initrd-Path: uInitrd
> > Boot-DTB-Path: dtb
> > Required-Packages: u-boot-tools
> > Bootloader-Sets-Root: no
>
> This is now called Bootloader-Sets-Incorrect-Root.
OK; found in commit 850c8fc323bbab52a6264035d11edd372ce2596f
The bootloader sets some UBI device on internal NAND as "root" without
changes... but as the u-boot env variables need to be adapted anyway for
booting from the SD Card, it is preferred, that the kernel
command-line-parameter for root works as expected.
>
> OOI do you know if mainline u-boot getting any support for this device
> (whether based on the vendor's version or not)?
>
As far as I know, there are no efforts to mainline the u-boot-support.
There are some experiments regarding the barebox bootloader, but
currently with serial port support only.
http://free-electrons.com/blog/barebox-2013-07/
The old u-boot seems to be the only bootloader that works reasonable in
order to boot the device...
Jasmin
Reply to: