[U-Boot-Users] Uboot (AT91 tree) macb in MII mode

[Stelian Pop]

Le lundi 14 avril 2008 à 11:19 +0200, Sander Vermin a écrit :

> > Do you have a working Linux kernel with a working network interface ? 
> > The Linux and U-Boot macb driver and PIO configuration is very close,
> > and if you manage to make it work under Linux you'll probably have
> > little trouble finding out the problem.
> >   
> Are all settings of uboot overwritten by linux?

Almost all the settings are overwritten, yes.

>  I am not to comfortable 
> hacking in the Linux kernel and I had the focus on Uboot.

So you do not have a working Linux kernel. This was my question.

> >> Olimex was kind enough to make Uboot nandflash build working with there 
> >> board, And deliver sources I cant compile, due to an error: Hardware 
> >> float vs software float. But I want a dataflash version because I am 
> >> using a BGA chip with nandflash bug.
> >>     
> >
> > I don't see what NAND has to do with ethernet here.
> >   
> The AT91SAM9260 BGA chip has a bug, that booting from NAND has problems.

Ok, but this has nothing to do with the Ethernet, right ? If the
ethernet is supposed to work with their U-Boot version, it will probably
work as well if you configure U-Boot to boot from dataflash instead of
NAND flash.

> > Also, what cross chain are you using ? I have seen strange network
> > errors when using recent compilers which after investigation were -Os
> > optimisation errors. (using the latest CodeSourcery toolchain for
> > example).
> >   
> I am using the compilers from buildroot.

This doesn't learn us anything about the gcc version you're using.

The official toolchain for U-Boot is the DENX ELDK:
http://www.denx.de/wiki/DULG/ELDK . I don't really think this is your
issue, but when nothing works it may make sense to put yourself in a
well known configuration.

> Olimex has indeed, but that is a old version of uboot, the old ETHER 
> driver and not the new. I inspected the initialization code on the ARM 
> side, that was the same. The rest of te code is completely different, so 
> spotting differences is difficult.

Ah, I understand. However, there must be a difference somewhere. I'm not
sure about this board, but on the SAM boards a software reset has to be
performed once the PHY address is configured to activate the PHY (look
into at91sam9260.c). Maybe your board needs something equivalent ?

-- 
Stelian Pop <stelian at popies.net>