Hi Ahmad, > > I have the code locally - but this time I will not have it posted before > > it is tested. > > > > Then I cloned the latest at91bootstrap - but they no longer support old > > at91sam92xx CPUs. > > So it was time to enable bootstrap support for at91sam9263. > > > > In the past I had something working, but alas no luck this time. > > > > Can anyone (Ahmad?) help me a little how to get the bootstrap > > functionality working on the at91sam9263? > > > > I do not expect patches, but I hope for something that can point me in > > the right way to do it. > > > > I have skov-arm9cpu boards (plenty - as they are mostly retired by SKOV) > > and one at91sam9263ek where I can test. > > The skov-arm9cpu looks like it already runs first stage without at91bootstrap? > So the issue is only with at91sam9263ek? For the moment my focus is on the skov-arm9cpu - and here bootstrap is not (yet) functional. But I think with all the good feedback from you and Oleksij I should manage. Thanks for the replies! > > We see very little interest in at91sam92* boards and we could decide > > to retire all the boards that are not updated to multi-image. > > As long as it works, I guess most people don't see a reason make interest > publicly known. > > > This could simplify things - and if there is interest the missing boards > > can be brought back to life provided they are updated to multi image. > > Any comments on this? > > I have only worked on SAMA5D3 and SAMA5D2. Of course, I'd like to see > board code in AT91 replaced with DT-enabled/multi-image-compatible code, > but I don't think it will happen. I don't think the maintenance burden > is high, so I'd just leave it as is. If it bitrots and people complain, > we can nudge them into the right direction. OK, you are right that if it just works no reason to touch it. I will do the patches alongside the current codebase then. Sam _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
