* Impact of change n port size
@ 2005-04-18 4:31 Atit_Shah
2005-04-19 3:14 ` Ricardo Scop
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Atit_Shah @ 2005-04-18 4:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
Hi All,
I have a kernel image which works perfectly for my reference
board. When I try to port the same image on my board I seem to be facing
problems. The only difference I see between the reference board and my
board is the port size and capacity of RAM.=20
I have taken care of sending the right value for the RAM size
through BD_INFO. Would there be and where all would the change be, if
any, in the kernel code OR when I make the kernel image ie through "make
menuconfig" / "menu xconfig" required to be made for port size of RAM?
Out of curiosity what would be the change required for different
FLASH port size again on the kernel side.
=09
Thanks and Regards
Atit
DISCLAIMER:
This email (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of =
the intended recipient/s and may contain material that is CONFIDENTIAL =
AND PRIVATE COMPANY INFORMATION. Any review or reliance by others or =
copying or distribution or forwarding of any or all of the contents in =
this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the intended =
recipient, please contact the sender by email and delete all copies; =
your cooperation in this regard is appreciated.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* RE: Impact of change n port size
@ 2005-04-18 6:05 Atit_Shah
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Atit_Shah @ 2005-04-18 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eugene Surovegin; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
Hi
Please IGNORE the "DISCLAIMER" which follows my mail, the company I work
for adds this and I don't know where in my mailbox setting I can disable
this option.
Atit=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene Surovegin [mailto:ebs@ebshome•net]=20
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:22 AM
To: Atit_Shah
Subject: Re: Impact of change n port size
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:01:27AM +0530, Atit_Shah wrote:
[snip]=20
> DISCLAIMER:
> This email (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use=20
> of the intended recipient/s and may contain material that is=20
> CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE COMPANY INFORMATION. Any review or reliance=20
> by others or copying or distribution or forwarding of any or all of=20
> the contents in this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not=20
> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email and=20
> delete all copies; your cooperation in this regard is appreciated.
Please, remove this disclaimer when posting to mail list, and then=20
I probably will be able to answer your questions.
--=20
Eugene
DISCLAIMER:
This email (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of =
the intended recipient/s and may contain material that is CONFIDENTIAL =
AND PRIVATE COMPANY INFORMATION. Any review or reliance by others or =
copying or distribution or forwarding of any or all of the contents in =
this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the intended =
recipient, please contact the sender by email and delete all copies; =
your cooperation in this regard is appreciated.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Impact of change n port size
2005-04-18 4:31 Impact of change n port size Atit_Shah
@ 2005-04-19 3:14 ` Ricardo Scop
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ricardo Scop @ 2005-04-19 3:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Atit_Shah, linuxppc-embedded
Hi Atit,
On Monday 18 April 2005 01:31, Atit_Shah wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> =09I have a kernel image which works perfectly for my reference
> board. When I try to port the same image on my board I seem to be facin=
g
> problems.=20
Like what?
> The only difference I see between the reference board and my
> board is the port size and capacity of RAM.
And hw design, board layout, ...
> =09I have taken care of sending the right value for the RAM size
> through BD_INFO. Would there be and where all would the change be, if
> any, in the kernel code OR when I make the kernel image ie through "mak=
e
> menuconfig" / "menu xconfig" required to be made for port size of RAM?
Well, if you're using PPCBoot or U-Boot to boot Linux, what you've done w=
ould=20
be enough.
OTOH, as you have a new hardware design you should check the SDRAM contro=
ller=20
initialization in the bootloader code. It may be sligthly wrong, so the=20
bootloader runs but the OS doesn't, because Linux really stresses out RAM=
=20
operation in burst mode. (BTW, this is a FAQ, if appliable).
> =09Out of curiosity what would be the change required for different
> FLASH port size again on the kernel side.
Look for the MTD parameters in the kernel compilation options.
HTH,
--=20
Ricardo Scop.
\|/
___ -*-
(@ @)/|\
/ V \| R SCOP Consult.
/( )\ Linux-based communications
--^^---^^+------------------------------
rscop@matrix•com.br
+55 51 999-36-777
Porto Alegre, RS - BRazil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-04-19 3:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-04-18 4:31 Impact of change n port size Atit_Shah
2005-04-19 3:14 ` Ricardo Scop
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-04-18 6:05 Atit_Shah
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox