On 27 Mar 2013 01:31, "Graeme Russ" <graeme.russ@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Brendan,
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
_______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
