From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Tue Sep 26 22:45:49 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F67E2466E for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:45:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B364D7E4BE for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:45:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id n69so14158321ioi.5 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:45:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=ubE2VeE2rXyQeGHRHwgWk2L1KTLMuGi7wBkPRLufq64=; b=yCNk87n5d75w7Wqh3enRsUBhHmjw8D3Z1cd2GhgAcx/YH2r1PaqrrkyJyu4kr8AgTL S6/oBioDvrSgdM6pOrV/n8XI7JCzOzhhhJiyh2MDW/TXRYwqq06zUSg4jRuGiuSwTf0Q DjH82GHuDfQgpup09RNT2Dd0z12ihXW9H26lDQ7p9Brvgl79AGlu1NPdc9xveThdmeNX ZI2acvF9533vbeZP8bh2XJwohIHpj0w4MQwnN4MQ3UhOWJVPZiBXB2O5ASmLpidpR14P IgqYgR6kBoXROgRb5U0t5cYC0yip7U+xThj9oipk0Pig8sWupcO0AVSW69ibHaM5tWpt dZug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ubE2VeE2rXyQeGHRHwgWk2L1KTLMuGi7wBkPRLufq64=; b=iFCliQkIcRHCPAj3Gc9Pu12gnLoLwpDb3lekWz3Lk09Kc/H/+kb6YDJ2HWGnqG2PNf l0Gfsh0Q3FuWao8JUAB7FqqN+28E4RwIe4rru3nQsIdI1BzY/ZphCRz/XlrxFSQFC61p BakfWkNY0t9IVrohzjfN/Ee89yRWqmWnt1O+eSi8saSPOlP32a0kfR3Ffk1rX6f1PzYI YpU3OwGChfUMG/ud51JXww7djXfyM2Pcr7o/lgjtuozlcHswLG5GUeqgNBbGnIOrgVg/ tCb+GOYtZ6YKMwtDqt7xgqwEIHlx2PDERccURNJ9sW0PWGdmwzlcS6sA3k9+U9rXhOx0 ibmw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhsZUsqtLAgyEqJdDgZTKeIIX9ZucO+K0uxLTD92ktcsTJa8ZVj uPUNWXn2zFfVX8kXHCag4sje0wnqnXDkj5VnPc16LA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBtxyckXSE4PxAapdxypJzOYXpBLsknD+xjjPfkrK8xcKpy2MkOUlgJE85pRnUka1+VYTBPHE63jkcZPm8G1cs= X-Received: by 10.107.185.7 with SMTP id j7mr17572277iof.221.1506465949112; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:45:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.2.194 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:45:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [50.253.99.174] In-Reply-To: <1506460653.73082.156.camel@freebsd.org> References: <201709260339.VAA16701@mail.lariat.net> <1506435673.73082.129.camel@freebsd.org> <201709261732.LAA21422@mail.lariat.net> <20170926200446.c188fda613df2ffb894b1ff3@bidouilliste.com> <1506450112.73082.143.camel@freebsd.org> <20170926204622.67ae9edbca62e2dcdbd1ea31@bidouilliste.com> <1506460653.73082.156.camel@freebsd.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:45:48 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yRRahXWzkLrHLVituZmTT2tNWd0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: CUBOX snapshots working? To: Ian Lepore Cc: Russell Haley , Emmanuel Vadot , freebsd-arm Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:45:50 -0000 On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 14:07 -0700, Russell Haley wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Emmanuel Vadot > om> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:21:52 -0600 > > > Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 20:04 +0200, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:32:21 -0600 > > > > > Brett Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One would think that sauce for the goose would be sauce for > > > > > > the > > > > > > gander. But is this particular Cubox now useless with > > > > > > FreeBSD? > > > > > > And if so, why? It is not an unusual model. The Cubox does > > > > > > work > > > > > > if I flash their "Ignition" startup software (which is used > > > > > > to > > > > > > bootstrap by downloading various OS images) to the same > > > > > > Micro SD card. > > > > > > > > > > > > --Brett Glass > > > > > The problem isn't FreeBSD related, it's U-Boot related. > > > > > > > > > > You could test build mainline u-boot just to confirm that it > > > > > isn't > > > > > something due to our ports. > > > > > > > > > If we used to provide working cubox images and we don't anymore, > > > > it's > > > > hard to call that anything but a freebsd problem. > > > There is working cubox images, the last one is from yesterday. > > > You even say yourself that you did test it and that it worked. > > > Do we even know if the snapshot worked for this board ? > > > Brett, could you test the 11.0 release for example ? (I don't > > > remember > > > if for 11.1 we already switch u-boot or not). > > I believe the change is in the u-boot port itself. However, I don't > > think it's a u-boot problem (IMHO), it's a u-boot build configuration > > problem. There are different board variants with different hardware > > layout. u-boot has code for it, but our build does not account for. > > Unless the scripts that build the 11.1 image use a different revision > > of the u-boot port, wouldn't it just use the current 2017.7 base? > > > > I'm trying to figure out how to generate a u-boot with the correct > > SPL > > portion of u-boot. One could pull the SolidRun u-boot repo, or go > > find > > the ports commit before the changeover and see if we can generate the > > correct SPL. > > > > I looked at Mainline u-boot and there is a board directory for solid > > run. > > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/board/solidrun/mx6cuboxi > > /mx6cuboxi.c > > seems to support multiple memory configurations based on defines, so > > this should just be a configuration problem. > > > > We clearly need to start supporting the lower spec'd SolidRun boards > > because this has come up a couple of times now since the changeover. > > It should be just a matter of creating a port that does the same > > thing > > but generates the correct SPL file? My SOM is a i2eX so I can't be > > too > > much help (and I've also over volunteered myself!). > > > > Russ > > > > The old imx6 uboot ports generated a single copy of uboot that would > boot dual and quad-core versions of both hummingboard and cubox > systems. If the new uboot works only on quad core, that's another > regression. It might be possible to extract the u-boot.imx file from a > freebsd 10 image to get back to the old one. > > Ooops. Except it appears those no longer exist. Is this a loss of functionality when the changes were upstreamed? Is it a bad configuration on our part? Any idea what might be going on or how to fix it? Warner