On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 06:50:54PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 08:55:42AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Derald D. Woods <woods.technical@xxxxxxxxx> [171212 16:34]: > > > I am testing using an appended device-tree. This has been the most > > > reliable method for the OMAP34XX boards that I have. If you have an > > > example config, with working command line MTDPARTS, for beagleboard(Rev. > > > C4), Overo TOBI, or similiar OMAP34XX, I will gladly use it. Also note > > > that other OMAP34XX boards currently provide a default partition > > > layout. Is that bad practice for all of those as well? I am open to > > > exploring the method that actually works. > > > > I think we came to the conclusion at some point that it's best to rely > > on u-boot passed partitions because with later u-boot versions the > > size was increased for the bootloader partition. > > > > Ideally of course we would read the partition information from the > > MTD device somewhere.. > > Already done and called UBI :) I am aware of all of these things. From an architectural standpoint I agree with everything that has been said. But has anyone checked booting lately? I helped fix an issue in U-Boot, a few months ago, where OMAP34XX boards could not boot for one and half releases. Structural changes were introduced, but booting was not verified on older OMAP3 boards. I will build with clean configs, for both U-Boot and Linux, and report my findings on this thread. I recently took over maintaining the OMAP3-EVM in U-Boot. This is why I am pursuing this effort. I am just looking for the consistent and bootable method going forward. It will be later tonight before I can verify builds. - Derald -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
