On 27 Mar 2013 01:31, "Graeme Russ" <graeme.russ(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Brendan,
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Brendan Conoboy <blc(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/26/2013 06:09 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
>>
>> I've had a quick glance at the U-Boot source and I think the newer
>> 'FIT' image may be a better path to follow. In common/image.c you will
>> find fit_image_get_load() and in common/cmd_bootm.c you will find
>> bootm_start() and bootm_load_os(). Teasing apart these functions, it
>> looks like fit_image_get_load() looks for a "load" property
>> (FIT_LOAD_PROP) in the FDT first, then in the FIT image (if the FDT
>> returns a NULL load address).
>>
>> Now you can set properties in the FDT in U-Boot (fdt set <path>
<prop>
>> [<val>])
>>
>> So have a common FIT image with a common FDT and use U-Boot to tweak
>> the FDT properties such as the kernel load address
>
>
> I'd love to, but we don't ship uboot for a number of our boards. We are
> limited to the functionality provided by the firmware provided. FIT is
not
> universal.
Well at least you can have a common image for all U-Boot boards :)
I suppose the 64-byte header per-board would work. Ugly, but not as
ugly as some of the other options.
You could also make a small mod to U-Boot to allow the load address of
legacy images to be changed via a command to make the hack slightly
less ugly
Not to the devices shipped with uboot in firmware. Some of the Marvell
shipped uboots date back to early 2009.
Regards,
Graeme
_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm