From: Marc H. <mhu...@lo...> - 2008-07-23 00:08:58
|
... and hence the file you're looking for is /etc/gumstix-version -----Original Message----- From: "Don Anderson" <do...@gu...> To: "General mailing list for gumstix users." <gum...@li...> Sent: 7/22/08 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] no /etc/gumstix-release Brad We are now working with OpenEmbedded. The developers web site is at: http://www.gumstix.net +++++++++++++++++++++++ On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: > I'm trying to learn more about the gumstix and the development env and > I'm looking at: > http://docwiki.gumstix.org/index.php/Buildroot > > and it says to: > > -- > To confirm the current revision on your gumstix, enter the following > on your gumstix: > > cat /etc/gumstix-release | grep RELEASE > -- > > but, I have no such file. Is there another file to check? Or better, > is these instructions out of date? > > Thanks! > brad > > -- > Brad Fuller > www.bradfuller.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's > challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Jonathan R. <jer...@ya...> - 2008-07-23 20:10:39
|
Just a general comment. I have been working with gumstix for three years, (still using 2.6.11) and I find the extreme instability of the configuration to be problematic. In the three years since I started, the build environment, the bootloader, the netDUO configuration, and the 4V dc converter have all changed. I have used gumstix as the basis of my product (www.surfwithconfidence.com), and will wean myself off of gumstix as soon as it is practical. Jonathan ----- Original Message ---- From: Chris Dollar <chr...@gm...> To: General mailing list for gumstix users. <gum...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 12:56:44 PM Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] no /etc/gumstix-release On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: > Should I infer by your statement I should rebuild and reflash to get up to date? I would if at all possible. 2.6.11 is ancient and none of the gumstix documentation is really geared for a system that is that old. One thing to note though is that you'll have to upgrade u-boot to version 1.2.0 (you'll have version 1.1.4) before you can reflash a recently built kernel and root filesystem. There are docs on how to do that for both build systems, so you should be able to do it without problems assuming you have serial/console access to your gumstix. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ gumstix-users mailing list gum...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users |
From: Lawrence H. <gumstix@HariTech.com> - 2008-07-23 20:27:29
|
One other item to note is that some of the original gumstix basix shipped with smaller flash (4M?) and the new kernels don't fit well and if you upgrade to the new uboot there is a new partitioning scheme and you have even less memory for the file system. Without some serious customizing and configuring nothing will work. Lawrence Jonathan Rhoads wrote: > Just a general comment. I have been working with gumstix for three years, (still using 2.6.11) and I find the extreme instability of the configuration to be problematic. In the three years since I started, the build environment, the bootloader, the netDUO configuration, and the 4V dc converter have all changed. I have used gumstix as the basis of my product (www.surfwithconfidence.com), and will wean myself off of gumstix as soon as it is practical. > > Jonathan > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Chris Dollar <chr...@gm...> > To: General mailing list for gumstix users. <gum...@li...> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 12:56:44 PM > Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] no /etc/gumstix-release > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: > >> Should I infer by your statement I should rebuild and reflash to get up to date? >> > I would if at all possible. 2.6.11 is ancient and none of the gumstix > documentation is really geared for a system that is that old. One > thing to note though is that you'll have to upgrade u-boot to version > 1.2.0 (you'll have version 1.1.4) before you can reflash a recently > built kernel and root filesystem. There are docs on how to do that > for both build systems, so you should be able to do it without > problems assuming you have serial/console access to your gumstix. > > Chris > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Brad F. <bra...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 21:01:25
|
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Jonathan Rhoads <jer...@ya...> wrote: > Just a general comment. I have been working with gumstix for three years, (still using 2.6.11) and I find the extreme instability of the configuration to be problematic. In the three years since I started, the build environment, the bootloader, the netDUO configuration, and the 4V dc converter have all changed. I have used gumstix as the basis of my product (www.surfwithconfidence.com), and will wean myself off of gumstix as soon as it is practical. Can we investigate your complaints a little bit more, Jonathon? What do you mean by instability of the configuration? Do you mean the software build for filesystem and/or kernel? Or, are you referring to the hw? What do you see as being wrong with the changing of the bootloader, converter and build environment? Software is always changing and we developers are accustomed to that (in fact, we often cause it!). Can you explain a bit more? And, if you leave gumstix, what would you replace it with? thanks for your answers! brad |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 21:29:34
|
Hi Brad, > Can we investigate your complaints a little bit more, Jonathon? I'm not Jonathon, but I'll pipe up a bit. Jonathon may have additional comments. > What do you mean by instability of the configuration? Do you mean the > software build for filesystem and/or kernel? Or, are you referring to > the hw? I still think that the 1161 version of buildroot (which only works on the connex) is the most stable version that I've seen. > What do you see as being wrong with the changing of the bootloader, > converter and build environment? Software is always changing and we > developers are accustomed to that (in fact, we often cause it!). Can > you explain a bit more? Part of the instability comes from having to add support for newer boards, which can break support for older boards. I own several other linux based boards from other vendors, and none of them update the SW anywhere near as frequently as gumstix. If I were using them, I'd essentially be stuck on buildroot 2.6.11 and wouldn't have received anything more recent. Having more frequent SW updates is a good thing if you're trying to track the latest and greatest. But just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. > And, if you leave gumstix, what would you replace it with? If it were me, I'd be inclined to use something like the WRT54GL with OpenWRT running on it. It's a bit bigger in size, but it can often be had for < $70, and gives you Wifi and a 4-port hub. The WRT54GL isn't as versatile as the gumstix, i.e. you can't get all the various expansion boards and whatnot for it, but for the product Jonathan has, it would be a good fit. The value add is the SW configuration being run on it. -- Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |
From: Brad F. <bra...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 21:14:32
|
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Lawrence Harris <gu...@ha...> wrote: > One other item to note is that some of the original gumstix basix > shipped with smaller flash (4M?) and the new kernels don't fit well and > if you upgrade to the new uboot there is a new partitioning scheme and > you have even less memory for the file system. Without some serious > customizing and configuring nothing will work. ouch. That doesn't sound inviting. Here's mine: # cat /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 63420 kB MemFree: 57808 kB Buffers: 0 kB Cached: 1896 kB SwapCached: 0 kB Active: 2468 kB Inactive: 576 kB HighTotal: 0 kB HighFree: 0 kB LowTotal: 63420 kB LowFree: 57808 kB SwapTotal: 0 kB SwapFree: 0 kB Dirty: 0 kB Writeback: 0 kB Mapped: 1908 kB Slab: 980 kB CommitLimit: 31708 kB Committed_AS: 9140 kB PageTables: 192 kB VmallocTotal: 581632 kB VmallocUsed: 70288 kB VmallocChunk: 4104192 kB |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 21:19:32
|
Hi Brad, On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Lawrence Harris <gu...@ha...> wrote: >> One other item to note is that some of the original gumstix basix >> shipped with smaller flash (4M?) and the new kernels don't fit well and >> if you upgrade to the new uboot there is a new partitioning scheme and >> you have even less memory for the file system. Without some serious >> customizing and configuring nothing will work. > > ouch. That doesn't sound inviting. Here's mine: > > # cat /proc/meminfo > MemTotal: 63420 kB This shows that you have 64 Mb of SDRAM. What does df report? The Size value of / should tell you how big the flash is. -- Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |
From: Brad F. <bra...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 21:26:09
|
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Dave Hylands <dhy...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Brad, > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Lawrence Harris <gu...@ha...> wrote: >>> One other item to note is that some of the original gumstix basix >>> shipped with smaller flash (4M?) and the new kernels don't fit well and >>> if you upgrade to the new uboot there is a new partitioning scheme and >>> you have even less memory for the file system. Without some serious >>> customizing and configuring nothing will work. >> >> ouch. That doesn't sound inviting. Here's mine: >> >> # cat /proc/meminfo >> MemTotal: 63420 kB > > This shows that you have 64 Mb of SDRAM. > > What does df report? # df Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/mtdblock2 15.8M 3.7M 12.1M 23% / |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 21:30:51
|
Hi Brad, >> What does df report? > > # df > Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on > /dev/mtdblock2 15.8M 3.7M 12.1M 23% / So you have a 16 Mb flash device, which means you could use the OE environment. -- Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |
From: Jonathan R. <jer...@ya...> - 2008-07-23 22:24:39
|
Hey Brad - Let me say first that I appreciate the niche that gumstix fills, in that it provides significant and flexible capability for a reasonable price. >>What do you mean by instability of the configuration? Do you mean the >>software build for filesystem and/or kernel? Or, are you referring to >>the hw? Regarding the hardware configuration, the addition of the MMC socket on the netDUO board increased the price, and complicated my packaging design, because it requires more ground clearance than I had designed orginially. Also, for the 4V DC converter, the diameter of the plug was reduced from 3/8" to about 3/16". This luckily didn't render the housings that I had manufactured obsolete, but the fit is not as tight anymore. Some hardware changes, like the increase from 4 to 16 Mb of flash, were welcome. >>What do you see as being wrong with the changing of the bootloader, >>converter and build environment? Regarding software configuration management, I realize that software developers (of whom I am obviously one) deal with configuration changes all the time. But changing bootloader and toolchain paradigms (splitting the kernel from the filesystem, moving to openEmbedded) are significant shifts. The bootloader change caused me signficant heartburn. I found a workaround (thanks to Dave), but now I am warry every time I order connex boards, because I wonder what new changes will have been added that will break my configuration. >> And, if you leave gumstix, what would you replace it with? Obviously ordering in quantity will allow me to have the hw & sw configured however I want (at the factory), so I probably won't change any time too soon. Jonathan ----- Original Message ---- From: Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> To: General mailing list for gumstix users. <gum...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:01:35 PM Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] no /etc/gumstix-release On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Jonathan Rhoads <jer...@ya...> wrote: > Just a general comment. I have been working with gumstix for three years, (still using 2.6.11) and I find the extreme instability of the configuration to be problematic. In the three years since I started, the build environment, the bootloader, the netDUO configuration, and the 4V dc converter have all changed. I have used gumstix as the basis of my product (www.surfwithconfidence.com), and will wean myself off of gumstix as soon as it is practical. Can we investigate your complaints a little bit more, Jonathon? What do you mean by instability of the configuration? Do you mean the software build for filesystem and/or kernel? Or, are you referring to the hw? What do you see as being wrong with the changing of the bootloader, converter and build environment? Software is always changing and we developers are accustomed to that (in fact, we often cause it!). Can you explain a bit more? And, if you leave gumstix, what would you replace it with? thanks for your answers! brad ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ gumstix-users mailing list gum...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users |
From: Brad F. <bra...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 00:24:54
|
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Marc Humphreys <mhu...@lo...> wrote: > ... and hence the file you're looking for is /etc/gumstix-version that'd be nice, but that file doesn't exist on this board. Does it make a difference if I'm working with gumstix-oe? |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 00:38:03
|
Hi Brad, On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Marc Humphreys > <mhu...@lo...> wrote: >> ... and hence the file you're looking for is /etc/gumstix-version > > that'd be nice, but that file doesn't exist on this board. > > Does it make a difference if I'm working with gumstix-oe? On a buildroot based system, the file would be /etc/gumstix-release On an OE based system, the file would be /etc/gumstix-version What does ls /etc show? -- Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |
From: Brad F. <bra...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 01:04:33
|
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Dave Hylands <dhy...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Brad, > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Marc Humphreys >> <mhu...@lo...> wrote: >>> ... and hence the file you're looking for is /etc/gumstix-version >> >> that'd be nice, but that file doesn't exist on this board. >> >> Does it make a difference if I'm working with gumstix-oe? > > On a buildroot based system, the file would be /etc/gumstix-release > On an OE based system, the file would be /etc/gumstix-version > > What does > > ls /etc > > show? Hi Dave, it's on another machine, but a file's name doesn't stick out to me to be one that would indicate the version. I just rebooted to see if it's announced in the boot but I didn't see anything. brad |
From: Thierry G. <t.g...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 05:32:13
|
Hi Brad, In very old buildroot versions, there wasn't an /etc/gumstix-release file. Could that be your case? If so, look at the kernel version to confirm (uname -r). In buildroot r549 (which I use) there is no gumstix-release file and the kernel version is 2.6.11. Hope that helps. Thierry On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Dave Hylands <dhy...@gm...> wrote: >> Hi Brad, >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Marc Humphreys >>> <mhu...@lo...> wrote: >>>> ... and hence the file you're looking for is /etc/gumstix-version >>> >>> that'd be nice, but that file doesn't exist on this board. >>> >>> Does it make a difference if I'm working with gumstix-oe? >> >> On a buildroot based system, the file would be /etc/gumstix-release >> On an OE based system, the file would be /etc/gumstix-version >> >> What does >> >> ls /etc >> >> show? > > Hi Dave, > > it's on another machine, but a file's name doesn't stick out to me to > be one that would indicate the version. I just rebooted to see if it's > announced in the boot but I didn't see anything. > > brad > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Brad F. <bra...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 18:06:41
|
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Thierry Genovese <t.g...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Brad, > > In very old buildroot versions, there wasn't an /etc/gumstix-release > file. Could that be your case? If so, look at the kernel version to > confirm (uname -r). In buildroot r549 (which I use) there is no > gumstix-release file and the kernel version is 2.6.11. > # uname -a Linux gumstix 2.6.11gum #1 Mon Aug 15 11:33:49 PDT 2005 armv5tel unknown Is this an old one? brad |
From: Chris D. <chr...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 18:17:06
|
> # uname -a > Linux gumstix 2.6.11gum #1 Mon Aug 15 11:33:49 PDT 2005 armv5tel unknown > > Is this an old one? Umm.... yeah... according to the svn log 2.6.11 was in use from March to June 2005... I'd classify that as a wee bit old :) |
From: Brad F. <bra...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 19:39:54
|
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Chris Dollar <chr...@gm...> wrote: >> # uname -a >> Linux gumstix 2.6.11gum #1 Mon Aug 15 11:33:49 PDT 2005 armv5tel unknown >> >> Is this an old one? > Umm.... yeah... according to the svn log 2.6.11 was in use from March > to June 2005... I'd classify that as a wee bit old :) Should I infer by your statement I should rebuild and reflash to get up to date? |
From: Chris D. <chr...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 19:56:36
|
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: > Should I infer by your statement I should rebuild and reflash to get up to date? I would if at all possible. 2.6.11 is ancient and none of the gumstix documentation is really geared for a system that is that old. One thing to note though is that you'll have to upgrade u-boot to version 1.2.0 (you'll have version 1.1.4) before you can reflash a recently built kernel and root filesystem. There are docs on how to do that for both build systems, so you should be able to do it without problems assuming you have serial/console access to your gumstix. Chris |
From: Brad F. <bra...@gm...> - 2008-07-23 20:07:11
|
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Chris Dollar <chr...@gm...> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Brad Fuller <bra...@gm...> wrote: >> Should I infer by your statement I should rebuild and reflash to get up to date? > I would if at all possible. 2.6.11 is ancient and none of the gumstix > documentation is really geared for a system that is that old. One > thing to note though is that you'll have to upgrade u-boot to version > 1.2.0 (you'll have version 1.1.4) before you can reflash a recently > built kernel and root filesystem. There are docs on how to do that > for both build systems, so you should be able to do it without > problems assuming you have serial/console access to your gumstix. Thanks Chris! Very helpful. Yes, I have the serial connection to the gumstix. I'll search around for the instructions. brad |
From: Thierry G. <t.g...@gm...> - 2008-07-24 05:35:07
|
Actually, I think that he'll have u-boot 1.1.2, as I have. I could not find any clear statement as to the possibility of upgrading directly from uboot 1.1.2 to 1.2.0. It is possible, or would it be better to first upgrade to 1.1.4, and then to 1.2.0 ? Also, once u-boot 1.2.0 is installed, is it still possible to return to buildroot r549 if OE doesn't work for me ? I have a VERY old and sensitive Bluetooth chip, which only work with VERY old buildroot versions (that's partly why I am stuck in r549). Thierry On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Chris Dollar <chr...@gm...> wrote: > I would if at all possible. 2.6.11 is ancient and none of the gumstix > documentation is really geared for a system that is that old. One > thing to note though is that you'll have to upgrade u-boot to version > 1.2.0 (you'll have version 1.1.4) before you can reflash a recently > built kernel and root filesystem. There are docs on how to do that > for both build systems, so you should be able to do it without > problems assuming you have serial/console access to your gumstix. |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2008-07-24 05:45:14
|
Hi Thierry, On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Thierry Genovese <t.g...@gm...> wrote: > Actually, I think that he'll have u-boot 1.1.2, as I have. I could not > find any clear statement as to the possibility of upgrading directly > from uboot 1.1.2 to 1.2.0. It is possible, or would it be better to > first upgrade to 1.1.4, and then to 1.2.0 ? You should be able to go directly to 1.2.0. I like to test a new u-boot first (by loading it into address A3F00000 (on the connex) or 5C000000 (on the verdex). > Also, once u-boot 1.2.0 is installed, is it still possible to return > to buildroot r549 if OE doesn't work for me ? I have a VERY old and > sensitive Bluetooth chip, which only work with VERY old buildroot > versions (that's partly why I am stuck in r549). The newer u-boot should work just fine with the older buildroot. You'll just need to modify the bootargs and bootcmd -- Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |
From: Thierry G. <t.g...@gm...> - 2008-07-24 06:20:31
|
Thanks Dave, I think I'll try, when I find the time. Thierry On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Dave Hylands <dhy...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Thierry Genovese <t.g...@gm...> wrote: >> Actually, I think that he'll have u-boot 1.1.2, as I have. I could not >> find any clear statement as to the possibility of upgrading directly >> from uboot 1.1.2 to 1.2.0. It is possible, or would it be better to >> first upgrade to 1.1.4, and then to 1.2.0 ? > > You should be able to go directly to 1.2.0. I like to test a new > u-boot first (by loading it into address A3F00000 (on the connex) or > 5C000000 (on the verdex). > >> Also, once u-boot 1.2.0 is installed, is it still possible to return >> to buildroot r549 if OE doesn't work for me ? I have a VERY old and >> sensitive Bluetooth chip, which only work with VERY old buildroot >> versions (that's partly why I am stuck in r549). > > The newer u-boot should work just fine with the older buildroot. > You'll just need to modify the bootargs and bootcmd > > -- > Dave Hylands > Vancouver, BC, Canada > http://www.DaveHylands.com/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Lunde, S. M <ste...@bo...> - 2008-07-24 16:20:57
|
Dave, On Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:45 PM Dave Hylands [mailto:dhy...@gm...] wrote: > You should be able to go directly to 1.2.0. I like to test a new u-boot first > (by loading it into address A3F00000 (on the connex) or 5C000000 (on the verdex). I recently bricked a connex board trying to upgrade u-boot from 1.1.4 to 1.2.0. Can you elaborate on how you tested with 1.2.0 by loading into address A3F00000. Did you load to that address then boot from that address? |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2008-07-24 18:49:27
|
Hi Steven, > On Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:45 PM Dave Hylands > [mailto:dhy...@gm...] wrote: > > You should be able to go directly to 1.2.0. I like to test a new > u-boot first > > (by loading it into address A3F00000 (on the connex) or 5C000000 (on > the verdex). > > I recently bricked a connex board trying to upgrade u-boot from 1.1.4 to > 1.2.0. Can you elaborate on how you tested with 1.2.0 by loading into > address A3F00000. Did you load to that address then boot from that > address? Actually, loading directly to a3f00000 is probably a bad thing since that's where the copy of the 1.1.4 version of u-boot is running from. You should be able to load it to a2000000 and then do go a2000000 to start executing it. It should then relocate itself to a3f00000 and execute. The above is for the connex. If it doesn't run, then I wouldn't program it into 0. My connex currently has 1.2.0 on it, and I did the following successfully: cp.b 0 a2000000 40000 go a2000000 and I was also able to download the 1161 bootloader (1.1.4) to a2000000 and run it. I think something different needs to be done on the verdex, since some versions of the verdex u-boot run from a3f00000 and some run from 5c000000 -- Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |
From: Shane K. <ski...@uc...> - 2008-07-24 16:31:46
|
Hi, I'm using netwifistix-verdex-robostix combo I need to add a temp. sensor and a voltage sensor to the robostix. I was thinking I could add a digital thermometer/voltage sensor by connecting them to the pins on port C and then use i2c to read the ports to get the values. Is this as easy as it sounds or is there more to it? Thanks! ~Shane |