Changed to get CVS head to build sc520_cdp
Both 0.3.0 and the latest head revision refused to build until I made this patch. Am I misunderstanding something?
coastal/uboot/u-boot-0.3.0/include/asm-i386/u-boot.h renamed from include/asm-i386/u-boot.h +2 -0
@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@unsigned long bi_intfreq;/* Internal Freq, in MHz */ unsigned long bi_busfreq;/* Bus Freq, in MHz */ unsigned long bi_baudrate;/* Console Baudrate */ +/* *** added to get the code to compile for x86 */ +unsigned long bi_boot_params;/* where this board expects params */ struct environment_s *bi_env;struct /* RAM configuration */ {
My method was simple.
Quoted 2 lines
make
sc520_cdp_config
make
########################################
On another track, I suspect that there may be a typographically generated bug in cpu/i386/start16.S. The code reads like this.
/* Turn of cache (this might require a 486-class CPU) */
movl %cr0, %eax
orl $060000000,%eax
movl %eax, %cr0
wbinvd I believe that the correct immediate value is $0x60000000. The given octal value is 0x00c00000 hexadecimal. According to the Intel documentation I have on hand, these bits are presently reserved in %cr0.
Quoted 2 lines · On 2003.05.23 02:50 Marc Singer wrote:
Both 0.3.0 and the latest head revision refused to build until I made this patch. Am I misunderstanding something?
No this problem exists due to changes in the core U-boot parts, not yet reflected in the version of the 386 port which is in cvs and 0.3.0. I am working with Wolfgang to merge a newer version of the 386 port.
Quoted 4 lines
My method was simple.
Quoted 2 lines
make
sc520_cdp_config
make
Yes, this is the way.
Quoted 11 lines
########################################
On another track, I suspect that there may be a typographically generated bug in
cpu/i386/start16.S. The code reads like this./* Turn of cache (this might require a 486-class CPU) */ movl %cr0, %eax orl $060000000,%eax movl %eax, %cr0 wbinvd
Quoted 4 lines
I believe that the correct immediate value is $0x60000000. The given octal value is
0x00c00000hexadecimal. According to the Intel documentation I have on hand, these bits are presently reserved in %cr0.
Yes, you are right, of cause. I expect that there are more of this kind of silliness in the i386 port since I still find the my self occasionally.
Best Regards,
/Daniel
--