From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org
In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). --- tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tasks/kernel.mk b/tasks/kernel.mk index a016d6e..f0ebb93 100644 --- a/tasks/kernel.mk +++ b/tasks/kernel.mk @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ android_kernel: make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) defconfig $(KERNEL_CONFIG) &&\ make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) uImage
-$(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel: android_kernel - ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel \ No newline at end of file +$(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage: android_kernel + ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage \ No newline at end of file
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org
In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel).
tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
hi Patrik,
Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
Thanks, -jserv
diff --git a/tasks/kernel.mk b/tasks/kernel.mk index a016d6e..f0ebb93 100644 --- a/tasks/kernel.mk +++ b/tasks/kernel.mk @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ android_kernel: make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) defconfig $(KERNEL_CONFIG) &&\ make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) uImage
-$(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel: android_kernel
- ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel
\ No newline at end of file +$(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage: android_kernel
- ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage
\ No newline at end of file
1.7.1
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang jim.huang@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org
In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel).
tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
hi Patrik,
Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk?
Thanks, -jserv
diff --git a/tasks/kernel.mk b/tasks/kernel.mk index a016d6e..f0ebb93 100644 --- a/tasks/kernel.mk +++ b/tasks/kernel.mk @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ android_kernel: make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) defconfig $(KERNEL_CONFIG) &&\ make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) uImage
-$(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel: android_kernel
- ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel
\ No newline at end of file +$(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage: android_kernel
- ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage
\ No newline at end of file
1.7.1
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang jim.huang@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org
In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel).
tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
hi Patrik,
Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk?
I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader at LDS in budapest.
IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead of lk?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang jim.huang@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org
In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel).
tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
hi Patrik,
Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk?
I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader at LDS in budapest.
IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead of lk?
That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already?
--
- Alexander
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang jim.huang@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org
In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel).
tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
hi Patrik,
Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk?
I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader at LDS in budapest.
IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead of lk?
That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already?
Yes, I was told that someone (TI?) had a public tree with it. If all goes well, John (CCed) would review those, clean the patches up, upstream and integrate then into our u-boot branches so we can have them for our LEB builds as well.
John,
I pulled the tree from:
source: git://gitorious.org/pandaboard/u-boot.git branch: origin/omap4_panda_es2.0 board config: omap4430panda_config
(referenced http://omappedia.org/wiki/OMAP_Pandroid_Main#Getting_Started)
-Zach
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang jim.huang@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org
In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel).
tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
hi Patrik,
Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk?
I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader at LDS in budapest.
IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead of lk?
That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already?
Yes, I was told that someone (TI?) had a public tree with it. If all goes well, John (CCed) would review those, clean the patches up, upstream and integrate then into our u-boot branches so we can have them for our LEB builds as well.
--
- Alexander
Thanks for the links Zach.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
John,
I pulled the tree from:
source: git://gitorious.org/pandaboard/u-boot.git branch: origin/omap4_panda_es2.0 board config: omap4430panda_config
(referenced http://omappedia.org/wiki/OMAP_Pandroid_Main#Getting_Started)
-Zach
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang jim.huang@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote: > From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org > > In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel). > --- > tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
hi Patrik,
Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk?
I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader at LDS in budapest.
IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead of lk?
That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already?
Yes, I was told that someone (TI?) had a public tree with it. If all goes well, John (CCed) would review those, clean the patches up, upstream and integrate then into our u-boot branches so we can have them for our LEB builds as well.
--
- Alexander
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Alexander Sack asac@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang jim.huang@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org
In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel).
tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
hi Patrik,
Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk?
I am happy to have a discussion about our default android bootloader at LDS in budapest.
IIRC, one blueprint that John Rigby wanted to own is about adding fastboot support to u-boot ... maybe thats a good compromise instead of lk?
That would be very nice. There's actually some documentation in u-boot about fastboot (a README). I wonder if there's some support already?
Yes, I was told that someone (TI?) had a public tree with it. If all goes well, John (CCed) would review those, clean the patches up, upstream and integrate then into our u-boot branches so we can have them for our LEB builds as well.
Rowboat also has a decent Fastboot support in u-boot for OMAP3 http://gitorious.org/rowboat/u-boot-omap3 Not all the Fastboot commands are supported though http://wiki.tiprocessors.com/index.php/TI-Android-GingerBread-2.3-DevKit-1.0...
Regards, Amit Pundir
--
- Alexander
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
On 18 April 2011 21:01, Zach Pfeffer pfefferz@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jim Huang jim.huang@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel).
hi Patrik, Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
I haven't gotten into lk too much (used it and the legacy fastboot), but it seems that sticking with u-boot may be a better approach since it has wider community support and better cross-platform support. Was there a specific reason to move to lk?
hi Zach,
In my opinion, if we can follow the protocol of 'fastboot' in _any_ bootloader, we can ensure the consistent approach to deploy firmware both in LEB and Android products.
u-boot is a great boot loader, but it lacks of usable 'fastboot' protocol support. I would regard it as the present working implementation instead of de facto standard in LEB for Android.
Thanks, -jserv
On 18 April 2011 08:46, Jim Huang jim.huang@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:40, patrik.ryd@linaro.org wrote:
From: Patrik Ryd patrik.ryd@linaro.org
In the Linaro set up u-boot will look for uImage (and not for kernel).
tasks/kernel.mk | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
hi Patrik,
Does this imply that we requires u-boot as necessary support for common LEB?
We do at the moment.
This patch together with the two others I just sent for review (build.git, use uImage for kernel and uInitrd instead of ramdisk.img) are there to make u-boot happy.
And we have included u-boot in the boottarball. (See https://blueprints.launchpad.net/linaro-android/+spec/linaro-android-platfor... for details)
/Patrik
I am not sure if we should introduce an abstract provider for kernel image, but I prefer to specify in board configurations since we might migrate to other 'fastboot' compatible boot loader implementations such as lk (little kernel) used in Qualcomm patform.
Thanks, -jserv
diff --git a/tasks/kernel.mk b/tasks/kernel.mk index a016d6e..f0ebb93 100644 --- a/tasks/kernel.mk +++ b/tasks/kernel.mk @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ android_kernel: make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) defconfig $(KERNEL_CONFIG) &&\ make ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=../$(TARGET_TOOLS_PREFIX) uImage
-$(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel: android_kernel
- ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/kernel
\ No newline at end of file +$(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage: android_kernel
- ln -sf ../../../../kernel/arch/arm/boot/uImage $(PRODUCT_OUT)/uImage
\ No newline at end of file
1.7.1
-
Alexander Sack -
Amit Pundir -
Jim Huang -
John Rigby -
Patrik Ryd -
patrik.ryd＠linaro.org
-
Zach Pfeffer