ubldr vs ubldr.bin?

[Tim Kientzle]

> On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Tim Kientzle <tim at kientzle.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:03 PM, Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 20:15 -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>>>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ubldr.bin is a raw executable image
>>>> (no elf headers) which is self-relocating and can be loaded at any
>>>> address.  …  a common armv6[hf] userland that runs
>>>> on any board.  Previously the single userland difference between various
>>>> arm boards is that UBLDR_LOADADDR was different for each board.
>>> 
>>> Wonderful!  Nice work.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> … and ubldr is still
>>>> being built only for compatibility with people that have older u-boot
>>>> installed.
>>> 
>>> Hmmm….  I wonder how Crochet should handle this.  Plenty of folks use Crochet to build 10-STABLE and 10.1 images, so we have to be a little careful about jumping ahead with new features that are only available in 11-CURRENT.
>>> 
>>> Any plans to MFC this?
>>> 
>>> Tim
>> 
>> It has all been MFC'd to 10-stable around the end of May and will be in
>> 10.2.  The only missing piece is changes to the u-boot ports.  I got
>> started on that, got like just wandboard done (but not comitted, I'm not
>> actually a ports committer so I have to get someone's approval to
>> commit), then this crazy-deadline project came up at work.
> 
> What changes are needed to the U-Boot ports?

Oh, I see.  So you’re going to change the U-Boot ports to
load ubldr.bin instead of ubldr.

Which in turn means that people building images will
need to install ubldr.bin.

I’m testing Crochet changes to use the U-Boot ports right now
(for RPi and BB).  Before I push those, I should probably
adjust things so I’m installing both ubldr and ubldr.bin.
That way, I’ll be proof against the U-Boot port changes
as they land.

Tim

P.S.  I suppose this will completely break building 10.1 images
based on U-Boot ports, since 10.1 doesn’t have ubldr.bin.
Hmmm…