[U-Boot-Users] MPC8349E-MDS broken in git head, ok at U-Boot-1_1_4

[Liu Dave-r63238]

The MPC8349ADS is merged to MPC8349EMDS in the latest u-boot
of GIT. The latest u-boot 83xx source code has more high quality than
the 
U-boot-1.1.4 release. But be careful the boot address is changed from
high
end to low end memory. and the HRCW need come from flash. So
1) You must program the image to the head of flash.  
2) Change the SW4[FCFG] to '1'

Best Regards,
Dave 

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm using the Freescale MPC8349E-MDS-PB (PCI board)
> reference design and am working on getting the board
> booted with the latest U-Boot source code obtained
> from the Denx git tree.
> 
> I'm designing a custom board using the MPC8394E processor
> and want to add a new board support option for this
> new board when appropriate, but first I want to get the
> MDS board working with the head of the git development
> tree, so that my changes are based on the latest code.
> 
> I checked out (ok, pulled) the latest git source and
> built for the MPC8349EMDS target, i.e.,
> 
> make MPC8349EMDS_config
> make
> 
> and then flashed the board, and it does not boot
> (well, I don't get a console at 115k baud, and the
> source looks like it still uses that rate).
> 
> If however, I checkout the U-Boot-1_1_4 branch,
> build that, and flash it (using a BDI2000 since
> the board won't boot), then we're back to life.
> Note that in the 1.1.4 release, the build target
> is slightly different, since the board was called
> the ADS
> 
> make MPC8349ADS_config
> make
> 
> Looking at the CHANGELOG I can see that there
> have been a bunch of changes since the 1.1.4 release;
> the MPC8349EMDS board was added, and then merged
> with the MPC8349ADS code (actually, there is still
> a Makefile target in the latest code for the ADS,
> but it doesn't build). Its not clear when the
> changes broke the build, or whether the build is
> fine, and that I just happen to have my board setup
> slightly differently (I've left it in the stock-format
> as delivered by Freescale, running in host mode,
> standalone).
> 
> So I can think of two debug options;
> 
>   - go with the latest code and figure out how
>     to use gdb and the BDI2000 to debug the problem
> 
>   - start using git bisect, and keep working to
>     find the break.
> 
> Both methods are new to me, so I plan to start out
> with git bisect.
>