U-boot patches
Page under construction... Informations on this page are not guaranteed !!
Contents
General information
patches -1xx concern the board apf9328
patches -3xx concern the board apf27
patches -4xx concern the board apf51
List of patches
U-Boot 2010.03 patches for the APF9328
u-boot-2010.03-100-imx.patch: this set of patches is specific to the CM9328MX1/L/S CPUs - This impacts all platforms based in theseCPUs in U-Boot.
- timer.c: Fixed a timer issue on the legacy version of U-Boot - so this patch should not be usefull right now. FIXME.
- speed.c: Improve the PLL frequency to the full resolution of the PLL registers.
- imx-regs.h: Add I2C module registers definition to be used by the I2c driver.
u-boot-2010.03-110-apf9328.patch: APF9328 main source files.
u-boot-2010.03-111-apf9328-DM9000.patch: fixes some bugs and issues in the DM9000 ethernet driver - also support to update the MAC address.
u-boot-2010.03-112-apf9328-makefile.patch: add apf9328 entry in the U-Boot makefile.
u-boot-2010.03-120-apf9328-tools.patch: add tool to generate the U-Boot.brec to upload U-Boot over a serial port - to be removed as armadeus BSP provides a python script to recover U-Boot.
u-boot-2010.03-140-ds1374.patch: support platforms with multi I2C buses.
u-boot-2010.03-150-apf9328-fixes_gcc_4_4_EABI_linking_issues.patch: Fixes EABI compilation issue with GCC 4.3 and later versions - Already fixed upstream, so it is not anymore useful.
U-Boot 2010.03 patches for the APF27
u-boot-2010.03-300-imx27.patch
add imx27 drivers:
- imxfuse
- I2C
- some new functions get the core frequency of controllers
STATUS: in progress
- add some #if defined(...) in generic.c
- move cmd_imxfuse.c to common/
- remove printf with hardcoded address in generic.c
NOTE: there is already a driver mxc_i2c.c with several cpu already supported, but not imx27. The i2c function should be added here (with a new patch)
IDEAS: split this patch in 3 patchs - one to add i2c feature on mxc_i2c.c - one to add cmd for imxfuse - one to add some features in generic.c
u-boot-2010.03-301-nand.patch
add nand features:
- enhance nand bad block management for SPL support
- support nand biterr command
NOTE: should be splitted in 2 patches
u-boot-2010.03-310-apf27.patch
add apf27 features:
- board support
- fpga support
NOTE: should be splitted in 2 patches
u-boot-2010.03-311-imx-nand-lock-unlock.patch: add iMX27 nand lock/unlock support
u-boot-2010.03-312-imx-nand-write-any-size.patch: Is this patch useful?
u-boot-2010.03-320-spartan.patch: Fix a bug in spartan driver.
u-boot-2010.03-321-add_spartan6.patch: add spartan6 driver
u-boot-2010.03-322-fpga_second_load_operator.patch: support spartan6 - spartan6 for apf27
u-boot-2010.03-330-fix-nand-debug.patch: fix compilation error in nand_btt.c
u-boot-2010.03-340-fix-fecmxc-debug.patch: fix fec bug to retrieve MAC address
u-boot-2010.03-350-fix-jffs2-warns.patch: remove extra 'print' messages on console.
U-Boot 2010.03 patches for the APF51
u-boot-2010.03-400-imx51.patch
u-boot-2010.03-401-apf51.patch
u-boot-2010.03-403-apf51-wdog.patch
u-boot-2010.03-404-apf51-fec.patch
u-boot-2010.03-407-imx51-nand.patch
u-boot-2010.03-409-apf51-nand-spl.patch
u-boot-2010.03-410-imx-iim.patch
u-boot-2010.03-411-Fix-high-voltage-nand-sd.patch
u-boot-2010.03-420-freescale-mxc_i2c-add_support_for_MX53_processor.patch
u-boot-2010.03-421-denx-mxc_i2c-add_support_for_the_iMX35_processor.patch
u-boot-2010.03-422-denx-mxc_i2c-get_rid_of__REG_access.patch
u-boot-2010.03-423-denx-mxc_i2c-address_failure_with_mx35_processor.patch
u-boot-2010.03-424-armadeus-mxc_i2c-add_support_for_the_iMX51_processor.patch
New organization of patches
Here is a proposition for a new organization of patches.
Motivation
The new organization should simplify the maintenance of patches and follow as much as possible the a common strategy already used for Buildroot and the Linux kernel. Also the patch should respect the requirements of the project in order to push the patches upstream.
Changes
- Move U-Boot patches in the armadeus directory patches/u-boot
- Have a link of the directory mentioned here above in buildroot/boot/u-boot - instead of the legacy path buildroot/target/u-boot
- Use a subdirectory for each version of u-boot instead of file naming convention - This will simplify the update of these patches regarding GIT for the next versions of u-boot (not yet but I hope soon :( )
- buildroot/boot/u-boot/u-boot-1.3.4/
- buildroot/boot/u-boot/u-boot-2010.03/
- ...
- to support a new U-Boot release, just copy the latest U-Boot patch dir and name it with name of the U-Boot release.
Therefore, the name of patch does not to contain any reference to U-Boot version(may be in a near future as Buildroot requires patches be named with a prefix u-boot-<version>- )
- Each patch has to respect rules defined by U-Boot to expect to push back each patch upstream: http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches
- Software changes have to respect the U-Boot coding rules (same as linux kernel): http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/CodingStyle
..
feedback from upstream
V1
SENT:
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-June/127138.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-June/127139.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-June/127140.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-June/127141.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-June/127142.html
FEEDBACK:
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-June/127149.html
- You missed an entry to the MAINTAINERS file : OK
- This ifdef seems to be useless at this location : OK
- Can't this be converted into a C file instead? : OK
- To many new lines here : file removed
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-June/127145.html
- nand_spl is deprecated -- please use the new spl/ infrastructure : OK
- Why do you need to redefine this stuff? : dont know how to avoid this
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-July/127891.html
- Really this patch must be merged with patch 2/5: "Add support for the : do it later
- See my comment about the SPL patch : OK
- We use a macro for CONFIG_SYS_GBL_DATA_SIZE. Is it not suitable for your : OK
- Do not let dead code : OK
- Drop also this line - check in the whole file for these occurrencies : OK
- drop also this dead code : OK
- Do you have several hardware version of the same board or which is the : need to answer
- Really there is another way to get the peripheral clocks for the i.MX : pending
- Why do these config belong to the config file ? You introduce several : OK
- Maybe you should move also FPGA related values to the fpga file - and as : moved to board
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-July/127892.html
- nand_spl is obsolete - new boards should add spl support with the newer : OK
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-July/127893.html
- Maybe you can drop this and compiling this file only if CONFIG_FPGA is : OK
- No, we have in u-boot a GPIO API to access the GPIOs. Check : OK
- Do not set your special version - use DEBUG instead : OK
- Wrong multiline comment - it should be like this : OK
- initialize : OK
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-July/127894.html
- clean / distclean are not needed, drop these rules : OK
- For my understanding: who does store the version number in the fuses ? : need to answer
- It seems to me there are some hidden important information in the fuses : OK
- Why is it needed ? : need to answer
- This is quite dead code.. : OK
- It is not clear to me why you have your special way to set up the MAC : OK
- This is SOC-related, and not board related. It belongs to the SOC code : OK
- config.mk is obsolete and must not be added for new boards. TEXT_BASE : OK
- The board are grouped for SOC, and then sorted alphabetically. The entry : OK
V2
SENT:
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-October/138611.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-October/138612.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-October/138613.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-October/138615.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-October/138804.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-October/138614.html
FEEDBACK:
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-November/140882.html
- Please merge 2/4 and 3/4 : OK
- Please sort MAINTAINERS by maintainer name as stated in the file heading : OK
- aside: I am somewhat surprised that something : request an answer to jorasse
- create a function that initializes one port passed as an argument with an array of consts passed as a second argument : OK
- Is this used? : need an answer
- What's the point of defining lowlevel_init? : need an answer
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-November/140883.html
- This is needed by 2/4 to get truly useable support. Please merge both patches : OK
- Please avoid mixed case identifiers : OK
- Please avoid comments that paraphrase ASM in pseudo-C : OK
V3
SENT:
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-December/141392.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-December/141393.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-December/141394.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-December/141395.html
FEEDBACK:
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-December/141886.html
- I think the ask the end of sentence
- Why do you need an extra definitions for the NFC controller : OK
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-December/141889.html
- I tried your patches, but build fails : OK
- This should be declared static, I think : OK
- Doesn't the following code work ? : no, need and answer
- Do you need this ? : OK
- you search for the environment : autoload is used
- Not clear at all : need to ask jorasse
- This seems dangerous : OK
- I suggest you move this function in a separate patch : OK
- Style, wrong multiline comment : OK
- Is it old code ? : need to ask jorasse
- I understand why : too big in memory, need to answer
- I am unsure if I have understood : initialize all gpio, need to answer
- ..but ACFG_APF27_CUSTOM is not set at all : remove it ?, jorasse ?
- If SPL can link mxc_nand.c : too big in memory, need to answer
- This is also done by generic SPL code : too big in memory, need to answer
- You also duplicate stuff that is in the generic : too big in memory, need to answer
- I have not understood why using CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK does not work : too big in memory, need to answer
V4
SENT:
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-July/159634.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-July/159636.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-July/159635.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-July/159637.html
FEEDBACK:
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-July/159662.html
- acked by ... OK
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-July/159666.html
- use SPDX-License-Identifier OK
- Maybe you can use here a ifndef OK
- There is already a function doing this OK
- We have general gpio functions in u-boot to set/get gpios TODO
- Can you use the gpio accessors (gpio_set_value() in this case) ? TODO
- To my understanding: need to answer
- You add FPGA in a later patch, OK
- The code here depends on the environment OK
- Also this could be part of a script, OK
- It looks like you had a missing function by linking OK
- I think there are some code style issues due to multiline comments. TODO
- But is the number of banks not detected at runtime ? TODO
- Using SPL, the storage driver (in your case, NAND) OK
- According to README: each define whose name starts with CONFIG_ OK
- Everything seems to me only for debug purpose OK
- Well, this code makes what the driver for NAND is supposed to do need to answer
- Ok, this must be done in assembly - normally is part of lowelevel_init OK
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-July/159639.html
- use SPDX-License-Identifier OK
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-July/159724.html
- u-boot-nand.bin is from the legacy nand_spl subsystem TODO
V5
SENT:
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-August/161546.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-August/161547.html
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-August/161548.html
FEEDBACK:
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-August/161546.html
- Acked-by: Stefano Babic <sbabic at denx.de> : OK
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-August/161547.html
- Last time I asked if it is possible to use get_ram_size() twice to get : OK
- Having twice the branch with if (get_num_ram_bank() > 1) looks : OK
- http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-August/161548.html
- Acked-by: Stefano babic <sbabic at denx.de> : OK
V6
SENT: