[U-Boot-Users] at91rm9200 - silent console

[Craig Robinson]

Dear List

I have a at91rm9200ek based board on which I am trying to get u boot 1.2.0
running, without success. 

I have also tried to compile and run u-boot for the ek directly from the
source, all be it with unmodified at91rm9200dk_config. This does not work
either. When I load the uboot.bin into flash (with a J-Link ICE) at
0x10000000 and reboot I get nothing on the DBGU console. Is this what you
would expect for an ek board with un-patched 1.2.0 source? I have seen
references to patches from Ulf for an EK board in the list - is there
something I am missing? Is the at91rm92000 support broken in the latest
version? Not sure if the recent thread [ARM cleanup - was: [GIT PULL] [ARM]
Please pull fromgit://denx.de/git/u-boot-arm.git] suggested it was...

Just to put my mind at rest I have also tried to compile and run u-boot with
CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLWEVEL_INIT and CONFIG_SKIP_RELOCATE_UBOOT defined. I thought
this may then allow loading and running uboot using the loader.bin programme
provided by Atmel. However, I got as far as a report that u-boot was
downloaded successfully and then silence....is this what you would expect?

Also, I'm a bit confused by the following snippet from at91rm9200dk.h:

#ifdef CFG_ENV_IS_IN_DATAFLASH
#define CFG_ENV_OFFSET			0x20000
#define CFG_ENV_ADDR			(CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS0 +
CFG_ENV_OFFSET)
#define CFG_ENV_SIZE			0x2000  /* 0x8000 */
#else
#define CFG_ENV_IS_IN_FLASH		1
#ifdef CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT
#define CFG_ENV_ADDR			(PHYS_FLASH_1 + 0x60000)  /* after
u-boot.bin */
#define CFG_ENV_SIZE			0x10000 /* sectors are 64K here */
#else
#define CFG_ENV_ADDR			(PHYS_FLASH_1 + 0xe000)  /* between
boot.bin and u-boot.bin.gz */
#define CFG_ENV_SIZE			0x2000  /* 0x8000 */
#endif	/* CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT */
#endif	/* CFG_ENV_IS_IN_DATAFLASH */

Does the above say (or imply through comments) that if we are booting from
flash and skipping low level init then the format of uboot is an
umcompressed binary and boot.bin is not used? Is this backwards or am I?

On our new board there is a different flash chip to the, now obsolete, one
on the ek board. I have altered flash.h and board/at91rm9200xxx/flash.c
along the lines of the patch by Nicolas Lacressonniere (24 Jun 2004) to
1.1.1 to take this into account. We are now using the AT49BV642D. I believe
it is compatible in all respects, aside from CFI ID, with the previous chip
(AT49BV6416). If anyone knows this to be incorrect then please let me know! 

Many thanks for you help and I hope I have not asked anything too obviously
daft!

Best regards,
Craig Robinson.

Circuitree Ltd
W: www.cctree.co.uk


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.13/998 - Release Date: 10/09/2007
08:48