Qi vs U-boot (was Re: QtMoko v30; UBIFS; can't boot)

Gennady Kupava gb at bsdmn.com
Tue Dec 28 14:45:56 CET 2010

Hi, Ivan,

В Втр, 28/12/2010 в 06:04 +0300, Ivan Matveev пишет:
> Lets burn some linux.org.ru style flame!

Hey, such foreword spoils good talk, so i'll try to be short.

>> It's also possible to setup u-boot like qi, 'read kernel first from
sd part 1, boot if loads, then try from sd part 2, boot if loads, then
from nand'. All with 10 lines in config file. Just noone need it.

> No one needs the good stuff :).

Cause is that this stuff is not good :)

> Does every FR user have to develop a bootloader?

Process of changing configuration is not development. Process of looking
up something in C sources of Qi is development ;)

> Please tell me how to do this! I have no religious bind to Qi. To hell
with minimalism, let us all use the bootloader that is standard, smart,
configurable and well supported.

I think easiest way is to use fw_setenv. I rethought, need relatively
trivial modification to u-boot to support loading plain file to env
variable with something like 'ext2loadvar location [var]'. But this
brain-dead by design idea require bootloader to support all possible
fses (how does qi reads ubifs for kernel parameters, if it has no
support for ubi?)

> I'm waiting for Radek's comment on this. Qi's sources are not easy, no
stdlib functions.

Local Qi pontiff is Paul Fertser.

> Please do not be offended. I was frustrated by FR suddenly not booting.

It's impossible to offend me with good arguments.


More information about the community mailing list