[U-Boot] New i.MX board

[U-Boot] New i.MX board

[Ian Molton]

Hi folks,

I'm currently bringing up a new i.MX6q based board.

I've got u-boot working, but its clear that a lot of the iMX stuff is 
still using the old configuration system.

is the latest iMX stuff in u-boot mainline yet? if not, where should I 
be looking / what is considered a 'model platform', so that I can 
publish the best possible support for my board?

Would more work to move stuff to Kconfig be helpful? or is this in-hand 
somewhere?

Thanks,

-Ian

[U-Boot] New i.MX board

[Wally Yeh]

> Hi folks,
>
> I'm currently bringing up a new i.MX6q based board.
>
> I've got u-boot working, but its clear that a lot of the iMX stuff is still using the old configuration system.
>
> is the latest iMX stuff in u-boot mainline yet? if not, where should I be looking / what is considered a 'model platform', so that I can publish the best possible support for my board?
>
> Would more work to move stuff to Kconfig be helpful? or is this in-hand somewhere?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Ian

Hi, Ian:
    What version is your u-boot version? there's some git repository
you can try:
        1. git://git.denx.de/u-boot-imx.git
            -  which maintained by Stefano Babic, merged imx related
code with mainline u-boot.
        2. https://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-fslc.git
            -  which matained by Otavio Salvador, have every branch in
mainline(2009.07 - 2014.07, 2014.10, 2015.01 etc...) with i.mx related
patches.

    Since i.mx6q pcie is supported in Otavio's git repository branch
"patches-2014.10", I think u-boot-fslc is support i.mx6q very well
now, it booting into kernel only spend 0.3~0.5s.

    If you have question which i.mx related, maybe you can also send
mail to meta-freescale to ask them.

regards,
Wally

[U-Boot] New i.MX board

[Otavio Salvador]

Hello,

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Wally Yeh <wally.yeh@atrustcorp.com> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'm currently bringing up a new i.MX6q based board.
>>
>> I've got u-boot working, but its clear that a lot of the iMX stuff is still using the old configuration system.
>>
>> is the latest iMX stuff in u-boot mainline yet? if not, where should I be looking / what is considered a 'model platform', so that I can publish the best possible support for my board?
>>
>> Would more work to move stuff to Kconfig be helpful? or is this in-hand somewhere?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Ian
>
> Hi, Ian:
>     What version is your u-boot version? there's some git repository
> you can try:
>         1. git://git.denx.de/u-boot-imx.git
>             -  which maintained by Stefano Babic, merged imx related
> code with mainline u-boot.
>         2. https://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-fslc.git
>             -  which matained by Otavio Salvador, have every branch in
> mainline(2009.07 - 2014.07, 2014.10, 2015.01 etc...) with i.mx related
> patches.
>
>     Since i.mx6q pcie is supported in Otavio's git repository branch
> "patches-2014.10", I think u-boot-fslc is support i.mx6q very well
> now, it booting into kernel only spend 0.3~0.5s.
>
>     If you have question which i.mx related, maybe you can also send
> mail to meta-freescale to ask them.

Just for clearness...

Please rely on U-Boot i.MX for it. The U-Boot FSLC tree is used to
carry backports of development version over the current released one,
plus Yocto Project BSP's specific patches like environment minor
adjustments and like.

If you see the patches we are applying on top of upcoming 2015.01,
they are only:

5d396c3 wandboard: Changed mmcroot variable so kernel 3.10.31 boots
c6d9bf7 iMX6: Change mmcroot to use fixed mmc block index for USDHC
be9a741 embestmx6boards: Change default bootenv configuration
ea9b369 wandboard: Use 32bit color depth for Fusion LCD
8e88da8 mx6sabresd: Use LDO dtb file until LDO bypass support is added
7d0f155 mx6slevk: Use LDO dtb file until LDO bypass support is added
dcd7ac3 mx6sabresd: Use mmcblk0 for CONFIG_MMCROOT

So it is really minor changes, nothing big.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

[U-Boot] New i.MX board

[Ian Molton]

On 10/01/15 12:34, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Wally Yeh
>> <wally.yeh@atrustcorp.com> wrote:

> I think u-boot-fslc is support i.mx6q very well now, it booting into
>  kernel only spend 0.3~0.5s.
>
> If you have question which i.mx related, maybe you can also send mail
> to meta-freescale to ask them. Just for clearness...
>
> Please rely on U-Boot i.MX for it

Clear as mud, chaps :-)

I presume fslc is "mainline", as in git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git

This is what I've use thus far and it seems to work well, except a small
problem with PCIe

What is u-boot i.mx? googling didn't enlighten me.

This comment worries me:

> The U-Boot FSLC tree is used to carry backports of development
> version over the current released one.

This suggests that u-boot i.imx is using fslc as a dumping ground for
stuff they don't want to maintain, rather than treating it as an
upstream with which to merge patches. I hope this is not the case? The
distinction is subtle, so perhaps I've just misunderstood?

Who is doing the backports? and why is fslc considered "behind" ?

-Ian

[U-Boot] New i.MX board

[Otavio Salvador]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Ian Molton <imolton@ad-holdings.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/01/15 12:34, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Wally Yeh
>>> <wally.yeh@atrustcorp.com> wrote:
>
>> I think u-boot-fslc is support i.mx6q very well now, it booting into
>>  kernel only spend 0.3~0.5s.
>>
>> If you have question which i.mx related, maybe you can also send mail
>> to meta-freescale to ask them. Just for clearness...
>>
>> Please rely on U-Boot i.MX for it
>
> Clear as mud, chaps :-)
>
> I presume fslc is "mainline", as in git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git
>
> This is what I've use thus far and it seems to work well, except a small
> problem with PCIe
>
> What is u-boot i.mx? googling didn't enlighten me.

This is the U-Boot i.MX custodian tree[1]; when working on development
version you need to handle different trees depending on the subsystem
so you can use the 'cutting edge' code.

1. http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-imx.git

> This comment worries me:
>
>> The U-Boot FSLC tree is used to carry backports of development
>> version over the current released one.
>
> This suggests that u-boot i.imx is using fslc as a dumping ground for stuff
> they don't want to maintain, rather than treating it as an upstream with
> which to merge patches. I hope this is not the case? The distinction is
> subtle, so perhaps I've just misunderstood?
>
> Who is doing the backports? and why is fslc considered "behind" ?

No. I may have not been clear but the pristine point is U-Boot i.MX

Basically i.MX related stuff does:

<dev tree> -> U-Boot i.MX -> U-Boot ARM -> U-Boot

The U-Boot FSLC is the fork we use for the meta-fsl-arm and
meta-fsl-arm-extra. Some environment changes are too narrow for
upstream, or are workarounds and a more elegant solution is under
cooking.

If you look at the set of changes we carry there they are minimal. We
upstream all we can as it is the best route for avoiding same issue
for the bigger number of user and to reduce the amount of code we need
to maintain.

I hope it is clear now.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

[U-Boot] New i.MX board

[Fabio Estevam]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Ian Molton <imolton@ad-holdings.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm currently bringing up a new i.MX6q based board.
>
> I've got u-boot working, but its clear that a lot of the iMX stuff is still
> using the old configuration system.

Not sure which version you are using, but if you use 2015.01 we have
kconfig in place.