[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ARM] Regression ? at91rm9200 machine-type
Marc Pignat ha scritto:
> Hi!
> On Tuesday 26 August 2008, you wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have a custom board equivalent to AT91RM9200DK.
> If it is really equivalent, you can use the same MACH_TYPE, else you should
> register another.

I used the same MACH_TYPE.

>> After commit
>> 87fee013a23ad02821699aef5b76891b42959182
>> [ARM] 4647/1: at91rm9200: Remove redundant machine-type verification
>> and manipulation
>> I cannot boot my board anymore.
>> Some more details:
>> - I tried booting from both U-Boot 1.1.6 and U-Boot 1.3.4
>> - I compiled U-Boot using "at91rm9200dk_config"
>> - On U-Boot bootargs=console=ttyS0,115200 mem=32M
>> mtdparts=AT45DB642.spi0:-(filesystem) rootfstype=jffs2 root=/dev/mtdblock0
>> - The .config of the kernel is in attachment
>> I don't know if this is an actual regression or not (I'm not much
>> skilled in machine-types/boot process).
> The "default machine" selection is a *hack* for machines with a bootloader too
> old, buggy or closed source.
> The right fix is to change the MACH_TYPE that you've compiled in u-boot.
>> However, it seems that the commit above, besides removing redundant
>> machine type verification, removed the default machine type for
>> unknown boards as well.
> This is a cleanup patch, if the hack is not removed, bootloaders will *never*
> be fixed...

I see. Thank you for the explanations. Linux developers made things in
the right way by removing redundant machine type verification.

The bug is in U-Boot which passes the wrong mach type when compiled
for the at91rm9200dk board.

Many thanks for your quick answer.


Ing. Claudio Scordino
Software Engineer, PhD
Tel. +39-050-5492050

Evidence Srl
Embedded Real-Time Solutions

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-27 12:13    [W:0.058 / U:2.932 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site