CUBOX snapshots working?

[Warner Losh]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 14:07 -0700, Russell Haley wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Emmanuel Vadot <manu at bidouilliste.c
> > om> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:21:52 -0600
> > > Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 20:04 +0200, Emmanuel Vadot wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:32:21 -0600
> > > > > Brett Glass <brett at lariat.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One would think that sauce for the goose would be sauce for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > gander. But is this particular Cubox now useless with
> > > > > > FreeBSD?
> > > > > > And if so, why? It is not an unusual model. The Cubox does
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > if I flash their "Ignition" startup software (which is used
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > bootstrap by downloading various OS images) to the same
> > > > > > Micro SD card.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Brett Glass
> > > > >  The problem isn't FreeBSD related, it's U-Boot related.
> > > > >
> > > > >  You could test build mainline u-boot just to confirm that it
> > > > > isn't
> > > > > something due to our ports.
> > > > >
> > > > If we used to provide working cubox images and we don't anymore,
> > > > it's
> > > > hard to call that anything but a freebsd problem.
> > >  There is working cubox images, the last one is from yesterday.
> > >  You even say yourself that you did test it and that it worked.
> > >  Do we even know if the snapshot worked for this board ?
> > >  Brett, could you test the 11.0 release for example ? (I don't
> > > remember
> > > if for 11.1 we already switch u-boot or not).
> > I believe the change is in the u-boot port itself. However, I don't
> > think it's a u-boot problem (IMHO), it's a u-boot build configuration
> > problem. There are different board variants with different hardware
> > layout. u-boot has code for it, but our build does not account for.
> > Unless the scripts that build the 11.1 image use a different revision
> > of the u-boot port, wouldn't it just use the current 2017.7 base?
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out how to generate a u-boot with the correct
> > SPL
> > portion of u-boot. One could pull the SolidRun u-boot repo, or go
> > find
> > the ports commit before the changeover and see if we can generate the
> > correct SPL.
> >
> > I looked at Mainline u-boot and there is a board directory for solid
> > run.
> > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/board/solidrun/mx6cuboxi
> > /mx6cuboxi.c
> > seems to support multiple memory configurations based on defines, so
> > this should just be a configuration problem.
> >
> > We clearly need to start supporting the lower spec'd SolidRun boards
> > because this has come up a couple of times now since the changeover.
> > It should be just a matter of creating a port that does the same
> > thing
> > but generates the correct SPL file? My SOM is a i2eX so I can't be
> > too
> > much help (and I've also over volunteered myself!).
> >
> > Russ
> >
>
> The old imx6 uboot ports generated a single copy of uboot that would
> boot dual and quad-core versions of both hummingboard and cubox
> systems.  If the new uboot works only on quad core, that's another
> regression.  It might be possible to extract the u-boot.imx file from a
> freebsd 10 image to get back to the old one.
>
> Ooops.  Except it appears those no longer exist.


Is this a loss of functionality when the changes were upstreamed? Is it a
bad configuration on our part? Any idea what might be going on or how to
fix it?

Warner