* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
@ 2007-03-27 15:42 Matt Gessner
2007-03-27 16:07 ` Ulf Samuelsson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Matt Gessner @ 2007-03-27 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi,
Can someone please point me to documentation that describes how to
configure u-boot to not use traditional flash but still allow things
like NAND and Dataflash?
My board doesn't have traditional flash so I'm not sure why I need to
tell u-boot that there is some.
I suppose it may be the case that I have to pretend it's there but never
use it, but I would like confirmation of this if possible.
Thanks,
Regards,
Matt Gessner
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-27 16:07 ` Ulf Samuelsson
@ 2007-03-27 16:05 ` Matt Gessner
2007-03-28 17:35 ` Dave Ellis
2007-03-27 16:35 ` [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash Wolfgang Denk
1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Matt Gessner @ 2007-03-27 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
When I do that, cramfs fails to build.
I'm using JFFS2, if that helps.
Regards,
Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ulf Samuelsson [mailto:ulf at atmel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:07 PM
> To: Matt Gessner
> Cc: u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
>
> Matt Gessner skrev:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can someone please point me to documentation that describes how to
> > configure u-boot to not use traditional flash but still allow things
> > like NAND and Dataflash?
> >
> > My board doesn't have traditional flash so I'm not sure why I need
to
> > tell u-boot that there is some.
> >
> > I suppose it may be the case that I have to pretend it's there but
never
> > use it, but I would like confirmation of this if possible.
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> You set CFG_NO_FLASH in your <board.h>
> The current U-Boot lacks patches, so you still get some bloat...
>
> Atmels U-Boot has more patches.
> Have extracted them and I plan to send it to the list shortly.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Ulf Samuelsson
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-27 15:42 [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash Matt Gessner
@ 2007-03-27 16:07 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-27 16:05 ` Matt Gessner
2007-03-27 16:35 ` [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash Wolfgang Denk
0 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Ulf Samuelsson @ 2007-03-27 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Matt Gessner skrev:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone please point me to documentation that describes how to
> configure u-boot to not use traditional flash but still allow things
> like NAND and Dataflash?
>
> My board doesn't have traditional flash so I'm not sure why I need to
> tell u-boot that there is some.
>
> I suppose it may be the case that I have to pretend it's there but never
> use it, but I would like confirmation of this if possible.
>
> Thanks,
You set CFG_NO_FLASH in your <board.h>
The current U-Boot lacks patches, so you still get some bloat...
Atmels U-Boot has more patches.
Have extracted them and I plan to send it to the list shortly.
--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ulf.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 301 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20070327/e6ee8e58/attachment.vcf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-27 16:07 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-27 16:05 ` Matt Gessner
@ 2007-03-27 16:35 ` Wolfgang Denk
1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2007-03-27 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
In message <4609412E.8010500@atmel.com> you wrote:
>
> You set CFG_NO_FLASH in your <board.h>
> The current U-Boot lacks patches, so you still get some bloat...
I'm not sure what you are referring to. There are boards without any
flash in the source tree that are supposed to build and run just
fine...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided
by the number of people in the group.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-27 16:05 ` Matt Gessner
@ 2007-03-28 17:35 ` Dave Ellis
2007-03-28 18:25 ` Wolfgang Denk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Dave Ellis @ 2007-03-28 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Matt Gessner wrote:
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
>
> When I do that [set CFG_NO_FLASH], cramfs fails to build.
>
> I'm using JFFS2, if that helps.
Here's a patch I developed to allow JFFS2 to work with
CFG_NO_FLASH (which really seems to mean CFG_NO_NOR_FLASH).
It works as part of a board port I'm working on, but I haven't
even tried building the official tree with it after
cherrypicking it.
It works with this configuration:
#define CONFIG_COMMANDS \
((CONFIG_CMD_DFL | /* start with default */ \
CFG_CMD_PING | /* ping is handy */ \
CFG_CMD_USB | /* we have USB on some */ \
CFG_CMD_NAND | /* NAND support */ \
CFG_CMD_MII | /* MII for PHY setup */ \
CFG_CMD_JFFS2 ) & /* JFFS2 for boot */ \
~(CFG_CMD_FLASH | /* have no NOR flash */ \
CFG_CMD_IMLS | /* needs NOR flash */ \
CFG_CMD_FPGA )) /* have no FPGA */
/* this must be included AFTER the definition of CONFIG_COMMANDS (if any) */
#include <cmd_confdefs.h>
#define CONFIG_JFFS2_CMDLINE
#define CONFIG_JFFS2_NAND 1 /* jffs2 on nand support */
#define CFG_NO_FLASH /* no NOR flash */
#define CONFIG_HAS_DATAFLASH /* has Atmel data flash */
Dave
--
Dave Ellis
___________________________________________________
SIXNET?- Truly Open Industrial Automation Solutions
PO Box 767, 331 Ushers Road, Clifton Park, NY?12065
Phone: +1(518)877-5173, ?Facsimile: +1(518)877-8346
E-mail: mailto:dge at sixnetio.com
Get product details at http://www.sixnetio.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-28 17:35 ` Dave Ellis
@ 2007-03-28 18:25 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-28 21:46 ` Dave Ellis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2007-03-28 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
In message <C8F551D39A7C724E987CF8DD11D317837389C4@svr3.sixnetio.com> you wrote:
>
> Here's a patch I developed to allow JFFS2 to work with
> CFG_NO_FLASH (which really seems to mean CFG_NO_NOR_FLASH).
CFG_NO_FLASH means no flash memory at all. It is mutually exclusive
with CFG_CMD_FLASH, although this is not checked anywhere.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Schshschshchsch.
-- The Gorn, "Arena", stardate 3046.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-28 18:25 ` Wolfgang Denk
@ 2007-03-28 21:46 ` Dave Ellis
2007-03-28 22:36 ` Wolfgang Denk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Dave Ellis @ 2007-03-28 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Wolfgank Denk wrote:
> > Here's a patch I developed to allow JFFS2 to work with
> > CFG_NO_FLASH (which really seems to mean CFG_NO_NOR_FLASH).
>
> CFG_NO_FLASH means no flash memory at all. It is mutually exclusive
> with CFG_CMD_FLASH, although this is not checked anywhere.
Wolfgang,
I agree that's what it should mean, but then it would also be
mutually exclusive with CFG_CMD_NAND and CONFIG_HAS_DATAFLASH, and
that's not how it is actually used. All the uses I see are to
avoid using things that require CFG_CMD_FLASH.
I'd like to eliminate CFG_NO_FLASH and replace it with
!(CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_FLASH). Would you accept that?
The only problem configurations are the MPC8xxx configurations.
Many of them are based on MPC8540ADS.h and MPC8560ADS.h, which
define CFG_NO_FLASH when CFG_RAMBOOT is defined, but don't
disable CFG_CMD_FLASH. I would make those like MPC8641HPCN.h,
which does disable CFG_CMD_FLASH.
If you (and the mpc8xxx custodians) agree with this approach
I'll prepare a patch.
Thanks,
Dave
--
Dave Ellis
___________________________________________________
SIXNET?- Truly Open Industrial Automation Solutions
PO Box 767, 331 Ushers Road, Clifton Park, NY?12065
Phone: +1(518)877-5173, ?Facsimile: +1(518)877-8346
E-mail: mailto:dge at sixnetio.com
Get product details at http://www.sixnetio.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-28 21:46 ` Dave Ellis
@ 2007-03-28 22:36 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-29 16:47 ` Andy Fleming
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2007-03-28 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Dear Dave,
in message <C8F551D39A7C724E987CF8DD11D31783A76767@svr3.sixnetio.com> you wrote:
>
> > CFG_NO_FLASH means no flash memory at all. It is mutually exclusive
> > with CFG_CMD_FLASH, although this is not checked anywhere.
>
> I agree that's what it should mean, but then it would also be
> mutually exclusive with CFG_CMD_NAND and CONFIG_HAS_DATAFLASH, and
No, not really. Because NAND and DataFlash are not flash MEMORY, they
are STORAGE devices based on some flash technology.
You may find I'm nitpicking here, but please read the lengthy thread
"Running w/o flash" where I've been discussing exactly this problem
with Ulf Samuelsson again and again.
[It's quite some coincidence that your patch is posted just now.]
> that's not how it is actually used. All the uses I see are to
> avoid using things that require CFG_CMD_FLASH.
This makes sense to me.
> I'd like to eliminate CFG_NO_FLASH and replace it with
> !(CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_FLASH). Would you accept that?
I think I would if you change only this, i. e. leave the basic logic
in "common/cmd_flash.c" as is. But I guess Ulf would jump in squares.
> The only problem configurations are the MPC8xxx configurations.
> Many of them are based on MPC8540ADS.h and MPC8560ADS.h, which
> define CFG_NO_FLASH when CFG_RAMBOOT is defined, but don't
> disable CFG_CMD_FLASH. I would make those like MPC8641HPCN.h,
> which does disable CFG_CMD_FLASH.
This is definitely not a good idea. One pretty common usage patttern
is to load anU-Boot image to RAM and use this to load and program the
"real" image to flash, so flash command support should be kept.
For me the question is why the boards define CFG_NO_FLASH then. You
will have to check this with the board maintainers and the custodian.
> If you (and the mpc8xxx custodians) agree with this approach
> I'll prepare a patch.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct
one.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-28 22:36 ` Wolfgang Denk
@ 2007-03-29 16:47 ` Andy Fleming
2007-03-29 21:58 ` Dave Ellis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Andy Fleming @ 2007-03-29 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On 3/28/07, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Dave,
>
> in message <C8F551D39A7C724E987CF8DD11D31783A76767@svr3.sixnetio.com> you wrote:
> > The only problem configurations are the MPC8xxx configurations.
> > Many of them are based on MPC8540ADS.h and MPC8560ADS.h, which
> > define CFG_NO_FLASH when CFG_RAMBOOT is defined, but don't
> > disable CFG_CMD_FLASH. I would make those like MPC8641HPCN.h,
> > which does disable CFG_CMD_FLASH.
>
> This is definitely not a good idea. One pretty common usage patttern
> is to load anU-Boot image to RAM and use this to load and program the
> "real" image to flash, so flash command support should be kept.
>
> For me the question is why the boards define CFG_NO_FLASH then. You
> will have to check this with the board maintainers and the custodian.
Sadly, we no longer remember why it was set. I wouldn't object to
someone removing the CFG_NO_FLASH definition if they could test it.
I might not even object that much if it broke RAM_BOOT. Get a BDI and
program the flash, people! ;)
I would even agree to test that change on one of our boards if you
remind me what I need to change to boot from RAM. I've not booted
from RAM since we were bringing up the 8540!
Andy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-29 16:47 ` Andy Fleming
@ 2007-03-29 21:58 ` Dave Ellis
2007-03-29 22:21 ` [U-Boot-Users] BDI2000 with ML403 board Leonid
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Dave Ellis @ 2007-03-29 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Andy Fleming wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> > Dear Dave,
> > > The only problem configurations are the MPC8xxx configurations.
> > > Many of them are based on MPC8540ADS.h and MPC8560ADS.h, which
> > > define CFG_NO_FLASH when CFG_RAMBOOT is defined, but don't
> > > disable CFG_CMD_FLASH. I would make those like MPC8641HPCN.h,
> > > which does disable CFG_CMD_FLASH.
> >
> > This is definitely not a good idea. One pretty common usage patttern
> > is to load anU-Boot image to RAM and use this to load and program the
> > "real" image to flash, so flash command support should be kept.
> >
> > For me the question is why the boards define CFG_NO_FLASH then. You
> > will have to check this with the board maintainers and the custodian.
>
> Sadly, we no longer remember why it was set. I wouldn't object to
> someone removing the CFG_NO_FLASH definition if they could test it.
>
> I might not even object that much if it broke RAM_BOOT. Get a BDI and
> program the flash, people! ;)
>
> I would even agree to test that change on one of our boards if you
> remind me what I need to change to boot from RAM. I've not booted
> from RAM since we were bringing up the 8540!
I don't have the hardware to test it, but apparently you build for
RAM_BOOT by setting TEXT_BASE below the start of flash. I tried
building MPC8540ADS with 'make TEXT_BASE=0xf0080000' (I don't know
if that is the right address but at least it is in SDRAM) and it
won't build because CFG_NO_FLASH and CFG_CMD_FLASH are incompatible.
If I remove CFG_NO_FLASH it almost builds but I get a relocation error
in cpu/mpc85xx/start.o (maybe 0xf0080000 isn't the best address?)
Also, the comment on CFG_NO_FLASH is 'Flash is not usable now', so I
don't liking removing it.
If I disable CFG_CMD_FLASH and CFG_CMD_IMLS like MPC8641HPCN does
for RAM_BOOT it builds clean. Jon, did you actually run the RAM_BOOT
configuration for the MPC8641HPCN? This is at least less broken
than it is now, so I'd like to take this approach, but I can't
test more than the build.
Dave
--
Dave Ellis
___________________________________________________
SIXNET?- Truly Open Industrial Automation Solutions
PO Box 767, 331 Ushers Road, Clifton Park, NY?12065
Phone: +1(518)877-5173, ?Facsimile: +1(518)877-8346
E-mail: mailto:dge at sixnetio.com
Get product details at http://www.sixnetio.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] BDI2000 with ML403 board.
2007-03-29 21:58 ` Dave Ellis
@ 2007-03-29 22:21 ` Leonid
2007-03-29 23:10 ` Wolfgang Denk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Leonid @ 2007-03-29 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Hi:
Did anybody use BDI2000 with ML403 Xilinx board?
Does anybody have ML403 configuration file another than that on ultsol
site (attached)? And what about registers' definition file for ppc405?
With .cfg file I took from ultsol site I cannot step through code and
get break points (I'm running u-boot now). It also complains upon reboot
though eventually succeeds:
CONFIG: loading configuration file passed
- TARGET: processing user reset request
- TARGET: resetting target passed
- TARGET: processing target startup ....
- TARGET: core #0 PVR is 0x20011470
*** INIT: #0 WSPR 954 0x00000000 failed
# PPC: JTAG instruction stuff overrun
*** TARGET: processing target startup failed
# PPC: JTAG instruction stuff overrun
- TARGET: target will be restarted in 10 sec
- TARGET: processing user reset request
- TARGET: resetting target passed
- TARGET: processing target startup ....
*** TARGET: core #0 startup failed
# PPC: JTAG instruction stuff overrun
*** TARGET: processing target startup failed
# PPC: JTAG instruction stuff overrun
- TARGET: target will be restarted in 10 sec
- TARGET: processing user reset request
- TARGET: resetting target passed
- TARGET: processing target startup ....
- TARGET: core #0 PVR is 0x20011470
- TARGET: processing target startup passed
u-boot is running (first stage boot loader loads it from flash) yet I
cannot neither stop the target, nor get breakpoints.
Thanks,
Leonid.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ml403_bdi.cfg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 5678 bytes
Desc: ml403_bdi.cfg
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20070329/02580396/attachment.obj
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] BDI2000 with ML403 board.
2007-03-29 22:21 ` [U-Boot-Users] BDI2000 with ML403 board Leonid
@ 2007-03-29 23:10 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-30 1:27 ` Leonid
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2007-03-29 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
In message <406A31B117F2734987636D6CCC93EE3C0133FCE7@ehost011-3.exch011.intermedia.net> you wrote:
>
> Does anybody have ML403 configuration file another than that on ultsol
> site (attached)? And what about registers' definition file for ppc405?
What's wrong with that file?
The register definitions file is on the floppy disk with the BDI2000
firmware...
> With .cfg file I took from ultsol site I cannot step through code and
> get break points (I'm running u-boot now). It also complains upon reboot
> though eventually succeeds:
>
> CONFIG: loading configuration file passed
> - TARGET: processing user reset request
> - TARGET: resetting target passed
> - TARGET: processing target startup ....
> - TARGET: core #0 PVR is 0x20011470
> *** INIT: #0 WSPR 954 0x00000000 failed
> # PPC: JTAG instruction stuff overrun
You seem to have JTAG communication problems...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
I know engineers. They love to change things. - Dr. McCoy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] BDI2000 with ML403 board.
2007-03-29 23:10 ` Wolfgang Denk
@ 2007-03-30 1:27 ` Leonid
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Leonid @ 2007-03-30 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:10 PM Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> The register definitions file is on the floppy disk with the BDI2000
> firmware...
Yes, I've found it.
> > With .cfg file I took from ultsol site I cannot step through code
and
> > get break points (I'm running u-boot now). It also complains upon
reboot
> > though eventually succeeds:
> >
> > CONFIG: loading configuration file passed
> > - TARGET: processing user reset request
> > - TARGET: resetting target passed
> > - TARGET: processing target startup ....
> > - TARGET: core #0 PVR is 0x20011470
> > *** INIT: #0 WSPR 954 0x00000000 failed
> > # PPC: JTAG instruction stuff overrun
> You seem to have JTAG communication problems...
No doubt. The trick is to find correct combination of EDK project, BDI
config file and u-boot/kernel projects to make entire thing work. And
also cable we've prepared could be bad...
Best regards,
Leonid.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-28 5:59 ` Ulf Samuelsson
@ 2007-03-28 13:24 ` Wolfgang Denk
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2007-03-28 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Dear Ulf,
in message <003d01c770fe$fc7b1f80$01c4af0a@Glamdring> you wrote:
>
> Their problem with you is that you ignore patch request.
Please be fair - I did not ignore pathches, I did not find time to
process them. The end effect may be the same, but there is still a big
difference.
> Not even acknowledgement for 9 months and this was
> 6 months ago.
What should I ack? That I received the patch? I am subscribed to the
mailing list. I receive all postings, and I can find them in the
archives. Just sending a "received" message seems useless to me.
> This is a systematic problem, which you are trying to fixed by
> introducing guardian.
Indeed. Please believe me, the previous situation was as frustrating
to me as it was to you and others.
> I see is a as pointless in even trying, unless you are
> prepared to accept at least existing code to be merged
I did not object against this. Lets see what others and especially the
custodian say.
> Once you have accepted blame, you do not assume responsibility
> for it, you want to offload all the work to others.
> You have no sensibility for other peoples priorities.
I spend an considerable amount of time in the past few days trying to
overcome the conflict you have with me. This was important to me, as
I think that most of your contributions are valuable for the U-Boot
community, even though I disagree with a few directions you have
taken. All my attempts seem to have failed. Instead of helping to
de-escalate the situation, you continue to insult me.
I stop here. I tried, and failed, again.
> If you want to change U-boot, then do so, but only when
> you have a definition of how you want to change that.
The definition has been made. See the archives.
> Meanwhile there are AT91 customers which spends a lot of time
> trying to overcome the problems you are causing by
> a position, which could be significantly different if you
> could see it from my (and not unlikely Atmels position)
I can see it from your position. But as maintainer of the whole
project, I cannot allow for each and every special solution. I've
done this too often before, and the result has always caused more
harm that benefit. I cannot accept each and every contribution, even
if it solves a local problem or helps a certain group of users. I
have to reject stuff that breaks consistency and design principles of
the U-Boot code, at least when a better way to solve this problem is
known and feasible.
I am aware that we cannot replace Dataflash support with something
new and better immediately, so you can be assured that it won't be
ripped out. But I will also reject patches even extend this current
implementation. If you want to help, please do this by helping to
replace that old code instead of adding to it.
If you really have the AT91 customers in mind, your best contribution
is to participate in the new design and implementation, so your ideas
and wishes can be considered.
Let's stop this discussion now, please. I don;t see any results
coming out of it.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others."
- the Dalai Lama
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-27 23:15 ` Wolfgang Denk
@ 2007-03-28 5:59 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-28 13:24 ` Wolfgang Denk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Ulf Samuelsson @ 2007-03-28 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
> Dear Ulf,
>
> in message <022201c770c3$43d20740$01c4af0a@Glamdring> you wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but I do not work in the Atmel AT91 Product Line
>> and I believe that they are the ones that should develop this.
>>
>> However, They have already given up on you and are looking for an
>> alternative solution.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. Is there anybody I could contact to try to
> sort out their problems with me?
>
>
Their problem with you is that you ignore patch request.
Not even acknowledgement for 9 months and this was
6 months ago.
This is a systematic problem, which you are trying to fixed by
introducing guardian.
When I now try to resubmit 15 months old code (or older)
you want this to be totally rewritten in a way which is undefined..
I see is a as pointless in even trying, unless you are
prepared to accept at least existing code to be merged
>> >From my point of view, the best approach is that Grant Applies
>> my patches on his local tree and fixes the mess he has put us in.
>
> Stop, please be fair. Grant is not to blame here.
>
> The culprit is me. When the Dataflash code was added, I did not
> really know what DataFlash is, and I did not take the time to study
> the code thoroughly enough to understand all the implications. It was
> my fault that this code was ever added to the U-Boot tree. If I had
> raised my concerns earlier, all of this would have been much easier.
>
Once you have accepted blame, you do not assume responsibility
for it, you want to offload all the work to others.
You have no sensibility for other peoples priorities.
If you want to change U-boot, then do so, but only when
you have a definition of how you want to change that.
Meanwhile there are AT91 customers which spends a lot of time
trying to overcome the problems you are causing by
a position, which could be significantly different if you
could see it from my (and not unlikely Atmels position)
> But I did not understand this then, and now we have the mess. But this
> mess is my fault, not Grant's.
>
> Grant is trying to help cleaning up.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
> Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
> Quote from the Boss... "I didn't say it was your fault. I said I was
> going to blame it on you."
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-27 22:55 ` Ulf Samuelsson
@ 2007-03-27 23:15 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-28 5:59 ` Ulf Samuelsson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2007-03-27 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Dear Ulf,
in message <022201c770c3$43d20740$01c4af0a@Glamdring> you wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I do not work in the Atmel AT91 Product Line
> and I believe that they are the ones that should develop this.
>
> However, They have already given up on you and are looking for an
> alternative solution.
I'm sorry to hear that. Is there anybody I could contact to try to
sort out their problems with me?
> >From my point of view, the best approach is that Grant Applies
> my patches on his local tree and fixes the mess he has put us in.
Stop, please be fair. Grant is not to blame here.
The culprit is me. When the Dataflash code was added, I did not
really know what DataFlash is, and I did not take the time to study
the code thoroughly enough to understand all the implications. It was
my fault that this code was ever added to the U-Boot tree. If I had
raised my concerns earlier, all of this would have been much easier.
But I did not understand this then, and now we have the mess. But this
mess is my fault, not Grant's.
Grant is trying to help cleaning up.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Quote from the Boss... "I didn't say it was your fault. I said I was
going to blame it on you."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-27 20:09 ` Wolfgang Denk
@ 2007-03-27 22:55 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-27 23:15 ` Wolfgang Denk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Ulf Samuelsson @ 2007-03-27 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
>> Exactly, but there is flash, but not any *parallel* flash
>> so the flash commands are needed, but not the stuff
>> related to parallel flash.
>
> Instead of trying to extend the current, deprecated implementation, I
> would like to ask you to rather help to eliminate and replace it with
> something better.
>
Sorry, but I do not work in the Atmel AT91 Product Line
and I believe that they are the ones that should develop this.
However, They have already given up on you and are looking for an
alternative solution.
What I am trying to do is to ensure that the existing work
is made available to our customers.
Since Grant want to change it, then he should do so, and promptly
since now his "idea" seems to block everything.
From my point of view, the best approach is that Grant Applies
my patches on his local tree and fixes the mess he has put us in.
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson ulf at atmel.com
Atmel Nordic AB
Mail: Box 2033, 174 02 Sundbyberg, Sweden
Visit: Kavalleriv?gen 24, 174 58 Sundbyberg, Sweden
Phone +46 (8) 441 54 22 Fax +46 (8) 441 54 29
GSM +46 (706) 22 44 57
Technical support when I am not available:
AT89 C51 Applications Group: mailto:micro.hotline at nto.atmel.com
AT90 AVR Applications Group: mailto:avr at atmel.com
AT91 ARM Applications Group: mailto:at91support at atmel.com
FPSLIC Application Group: mailto:fpslic at atmel.com Best AVR
link: www.avrfreaks.net
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-27 18:02 ` Ulf Samuelsson
@ 2007-03-27 20:09 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-27 22:55 ` Ulf Samuelsson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2007-03-27 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
In message <46095C4B.2090505@atmel.com> you wrote:
>
> > No. The whole file is not compiled as it starts
> >
> > #if (CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_FLASH)
> >
> > If you have no flash, you need no flash commands, so you don't define
> > CFG_CMD_FLASH and everything is fine.
>
> I have flash, just not parallel flash.
> and I need the flash commands but not the stuff related to parallel flash.
There is no such concept as "parallel" flash in U-Boot. The term
"flash" is usually (*) used to name flash memory, i. e. some form of
non-volatile, byte-addressable, often block-erasable memory. And
before there is more confusion in terms: memory is something the CPU
can address on the address bus and read/write data from/to on the
data bus.
(*) The "usually" above refers to the fact that there are other types
of storage devices like NAND flash, data flash, CompactFlash, ...
that also use the work "flash" in their name, but without
providing a memory-like interface, so it is technically wrong to
call these "flash memory".
The U-Boot command set enabled by the CFG_CMD_FLASH option provides
support for flash memory. Similar, the command set CFG_CMD_MEMORY
provides additional commands to operate on flash and other memory
types.
In U-Boot, the meaning of the term "flash" is consistent, i. e. both
CFG_NO_FLASH and CFG_CMD_FLASH refer to exactly the same definition:
flash memory.
If you define CFG_NO_FLASH it makes no sense to define CFG_CMD_FLASH
as "no flash" means that: there is no flash memory support on that
board. [You might argue that this should actually be automatically
handled by U-Boot, i. e. defining both CFG_CMD_FLASH and CFG_NO_FLASH
on one board should throw an error condition. I will not reject a
patch that implements such checking, although I personally think this
is not needed.]
Now back to your statement of having "flash, just not parallel
flash." I know what you mean, but in the strict technical sense this
staement is wrong. You don't have flash memory (what you call
"parallel flash"). We agree on that. But instead of simplyfying your
system description into "I have flash" you should correctly state: I
have one or more flash storage devices (line NAND, Data Flash, etc.).
This is the crucial point of this discussion, and all the lengthy
previous discussions we had about this: U-Boot memory commands and
U-Boot flash commands are intended to operate on memory, including
flash memory. The are NOT intended to operate on any kind of storage
devices. For storage devices a differen set of commands must be used.
I know, that the current code to support Data Flash pretends that
such storage devices actually look like memory, but this is wrong.
And, as has been discussed several times before, this code shall and
will be removed from the U-Boot tree, and replaced by somthing new
which better represents tha actual nature and access types to such
storage devices.
> Exactly, but there is flash, but not any *parallel* flash
> so the flash commands are needed, but not the stuff
> related to parallel flash.
Instead of trying to extend the current, deprecated implementation, I
would like to ask you to rather help to eliminate and replace it with
something better.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
You cannot propel yourself forward by patting yourself on the back.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-27 17:43 ` Wolfgang Denk
@ 2007-03-27 18:02 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-27 20:09 ` Wolfgang Denk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Ulf Samuelsson @ 2007-03-27 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Wolfgang Denk skrev:
> In message <460950A1.1060306@atmel.com> you wrote:
>> You believe that the code ifdef'ed away is neccessary
>> if you do not have any parallel flash?
>
> No. The whole file is not compiled as it starts
>
> #if (CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_FLASH)
>
> If you have no flash, you need no flash commands, so you don't define
> CFG_CMD_FLASH and everything is fine.
>
I have flash, just not parallel flash.
and I need the flash commands but not the stuff related to parallel flash.
>> They are not unneccessary, they are the first patches
>> of a set, which you are well aware that I would like to have
>> merged with the mainline.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. But if there is no flash, we don't need
> no flash commands either, no matter if these are empty or not. Agreed?
Exactly, but there is flash, but not any *parallel* flash
so the flash commands are needed, but not the stuff
related to parallel flash.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson ulf at atmel.com
Atmel Nordic AB
Mail: Box 2033, 174 02 Sundbyberg, Sweden
Visit: Kavalleriv?gen 24, 174 58 Sundbyberg, Sweden
Phone +46 (8) 441 54 22 Fax +46 (8) 441 54 29
GSM +46 (706) 22 44 57
Technical support when I am not available:
AT90 AVR Applications Group: mailto:avr at atmel.com
AT91 ARM Applications Group: mailto:at91support at atmel.com
links: www.avrfreaks.net; www.at91.com; avr32linux.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ulf.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 301 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20070327/b1325fbf/attachment.vcf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
2007-03-27 17:13 ` Ulf Samuelsson
@ 2007-03-27 17:43 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-27 18:02 ` Ulf Samuelsson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Denk @ 2007-03-27 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
In message <460950A1.1060306@atmel.com> you wrote:
>
> You believe that the code ifdef'ed away is neccessary
> if you do not have any parallel flash?
No. The whole file is not compiled as it starts
#if (CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_FLASH)
If you have no flash, you need no flash commands, so you don't define
CFG_CMD_FLASH and everything is fine.
> They are not unneccessary, they are the first patches
> of a set, which you are well aware that I would like to have
> merged with the mainline.
I'm not sure what you mean. But if there is no flash, we don't need
no flash commands either, no matter if these are empty or not. Agreed?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Systems programmers are the high priests of a low cult.
-- R.S. Barton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash
[not found] <20070327164440.ABC9435261B@atlas.denx.de>
@ 2007-03-27 17:13 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-27 17:43 ` Wolfgang Denk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Ulf Samuelsson @ 2007-03-27 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
Wolfgang Denk skrev:
> In message <46094852.4080605@atmel.com> you wrote:
>> Yes, but there is still code compiled in which is not neccessary.
>
> I disagree.
>
I do not understand!
You believe that the code ifdef'ed away is neccessary
if you do not have any parallel flash?
>> See patch: 24.noflash, just sent.
>
> See my NAK to your patch which adds unnecessary empty functions.
>
They are not unneccessary, they are the first patches
of a set, which you are well aware that I would like to have
merged with the mainline.
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson ulf at atmel.com
Atmel Nordic AB
Mail: Box 2033, 174 02 Sundbyberg, Sweden
Visit: Kavalleriv?gen 24, 174 58 Sundbyberg, Sweden
Phone +46 (8) 441 54 22 Fax +46 (8) 441 54 29
GSM +46 (706) 22 44 57
Technical support when I am not available:
AT90 AVR Applications Group: mailto:avr at atmel.com
AT91 ARM Applications Group: mailto:at91support at atmel.com
links: www.avrfreaks.net; www.at91.com; avr32linux.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ulf.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 301 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20070327/a319fdae/attachment.vcf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-03-30 1:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-03-27 15:42 [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash Matt Gessner
2007-03-27 16:07 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-27 16:05 ` Matt Gessner
2007-03-28 17:35 ` Dave Ellis
2007-03-28 18:25 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-28 21:46 ` Dave Ellis
2007-03-28 22:36 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-29 16:47 ` Andy Fleming
2007-03-29 21:58 ` Dave Ellis
2007-03-29 22:21 ` [U-Boot-Users] BDI2000 with ML403 board Leonid
2007-03-29 23:10 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-30 1:27 ` Leonid
2007-03-27 16:35 ` [U-Boot-Users] Running w/o flash Wolfgang Denk
[not found] <20070327164440.ABC9435261B@atlas.denx.de>
2007-03-27 17:13 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-27 17:43 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-27 18:02 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-27 20:09 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-27 22:55 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-27 23:15 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-03-28 5:59 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2007-03-28 13:24 ` Wolfgang Denk
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.