Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

Hi friends,

I need some help with barebox environment management. I've added env/config file
to arch/arm/myboard/ directory, fixed Makefile with `bbenv-y += env` string, but
this config file doesn't apply on barebox boots. What can be the reason for such a problem?

--
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

Dear friends,

Still cannot make my environment be compiled into barebox final image.
Maybe I missed something? Which config parameters should be set
to do this?..


-- 
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Sascha Hauer]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:34:49PM +0300, Seraphim Dolbilov wrote:
> Hi friends,
> 
> I need some help with barebox environment management. I've added env/config file
> to arch/arm/myboard/ directory, fixed Makefile with `bbenv-y += env` string, but
> this config file doesn't apply on barebox boots. What can be the reason for such a problem?

with bbenv-y it is only compiled it, but remains unused. You have to add
it using defaultenv_append_directory().

Regards
 Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

21.01.2019, 18:12, "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>:
> with bbenv-y it is only compiled it, but remains unused. You have to add
> it using defaultenv_append_directory().

Well, it seems, I've solved this problem by adding path to my board's env to
CONFIG_DEFAULT_ENVIRONMENT_PATH (without bbenv-y entry in Makefile). 
Is it a right way, or I shall compile env into binary manually somehow?
If use defaultenv_append_directory(), where exactly it must be used?

-- 
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:12:32PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:34:49PM +0300, Seraphim Dolbilov wrote:
> > Hi friends,
> > 
> > I need some help with barebox environment management. I've added env/config file
> > to arch/arm/myboard/ directory, fixed Makefile with `bbenv-y += env` string, but
> > this config file doesn't apply on barebox boots. What can be the reason for such a problem?
> 
> with bbenv-y it is only compiled it, but remains unused. You have to add
> it using defaultenv_append_directory().

Or even better I think to add the path to:
DEFAULT_ENVIRONMENT_PATH

See sama5d4_xplained as an example.

	Sam

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

21.01.2019, 19:35, "Sam Ravnborg" <sam@ravnborg.org>:
> Or even better I think to add the path to:
> DEFAULT_ENVIRONMENT_PATH

Got that. However this option seems to be not so universal as if env
is linked straight to binary image.

-- 
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Sascha Hauer]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 05:35:03PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:12:32PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:34:49PM +0300, Seraphim Dolbilov wrote:
> > > Hi friends,
> > > 
> > > I need some help with barebox environment management. I've added env/config file
> > > to arch/arm/myboard/ directory, fixed Makefile with `bbenv-y += env` string, but
> > > this config file doesn't apply on barebox boots. What can be the reason for such a problem?
> > 
> > with bbenv-y it is only compiled it, but remains unused. You have to add
> > it using defaultenv_append_directory().
> 
> Or even better I think to add the path to:
> DEFAULT_ENVIRONMENT_PATH

This only works when you want to add something to the environment for
all boards. When you only want to change the environment for a single
board then defaultenv_append_directory() is the right choice.

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

Hi, Sascha

22.01.2019, 09:33, "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>:
> This only works when you want to add something to the environment for
> all boards. When you only want to change the environment for a single
> board then defaultenv_append_directory() is the right choice.

Thanks, did so! However, environment is not recompiled on change,
so I have to do `make clean && make` in order to get the newest one.
Is it a bug or an expected behaviour?

-- 
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Sascha Hauer]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 05:07:23PM +0300, Seraphim Dolbilov wrote:
> Hi, Sascha
> 
> 22.01.2019, 09:33, "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>:
> > This only works when you want to add something to the environment for
> > all boards. When you only want to change the environment for a single
> > board then defaultenv_append_directory() is the right choice.
> 
> Thanks, did so! However, environment is not recompiled on change,
> so I have to do `make clean && make` in order to get the newest one.
> Is it a bug or an expected behaviour?

It's an expected bug ;)

I know this behaviour and it's definitely a bug, but unfortunately I
have no idea how to fix this.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

How can I get an output of a shell command in hush shell?
Backticks and $() cannot do not work :(

-- 
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Sascha Hauer]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 07:12:16PM +0300, Seraphim Dolbilov wrote:
> How can I get an output of a shell command in hush shell?
> Backticks and $() cannot do not work :(

You can't get the output of a command, that's not implemented. Some
commands work around this in the way that you can pass a variable name
on the commandline and after exit the variable will be filled with the
desired result. the "readline" command is an example for this.

What are you trying to archieve? Often the desire to parse the output of
a command is a sign that you are stretching the barebox scripting
capabilities beyond their limits. Some piece of C code is doing the job
in a much more robust way.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

23.01.2019, 12:11, "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>:
> What are you trying to archieve?

My board contains mcp79411 - it's an I2C RTC with EEPROM, which contains
global-registered MAC address. I want this MAC address to be read by Barebox
and passed to Linux kernel FEC driver through bootargs. I was trying to find
solution for shell, but 've already realized that it's impossible to get command's
output into env variable, so I've to implement it right in board's code.

Moreover, I had an idea of my device's image having capability to be updated 
from USB drive using memcpy command (flashing image file from USB drive right
away into EMMC), but I also cannot check integrity of image flie from 
Barebox's shell, due to its inability to get command's output.

-- 
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Sascha Hauer]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 01:01:46PM +0300, Seraphim Dolbilov wrote:
> 23.01.2019, 12:11, "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>:
> > What are you trying to archieve?
> 
> My board contains mcp79411 - it's an I2C RTC with EEPROM, which contains
> global-registered MAC address. I want this MAC address to be read by Barebox
> and passed to Linux kernel FEC driver through bootargs. I was trying to find
> solution for shell, but 've already realized that it's impossible to get command's
> output into env variable, so I've to implement it right in board's code.

Indeed, that's better.

You shouldn't use bootargs to pass the MAC address though. There's
of_eth_register_ethaddr() which you can pass the pointer to the fec
device tree node and the MAC address you found in the EEPROM. The rest
is done automatically by barebox.

> 
> Moreover, I had an idea of my device's image having capability to be updated 
> from USB drive using memcpy command (flashing image file from USB drive right
> away into EMMC), but I also cannot check integrity of image flie from 
> Barebox's shell, due to its inability to get command's output.

How is the integrity checked? Some md5sum or something? Anyway, you're
better off doing that in C.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

Hello Sascha,

23.01.2019, 13:17, "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>:
> How is the integrity checked? Some md5sum or something? Anyway, you're
> better off doing that in C.

Well, how can I call C functions from shell without implementing own shell command?

-- 
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

Hello, friends!

I'm interested if there is any internal Barebox convention about
return types and values of initcall functions. What shall return
my initcall if I want to stop booting and display error message?

-- 
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Sascha Hauer]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 05:11:01PM +0300, Seraphim Dolbilov wrote:
> Hello, friends!
> 
> I'm interested if there is any internal Barebox convention about
> return types and values of initcall functions. What shall return
> my initcall if I want to stop booting and display error message?

An error message will be printed whenever you return an initcall with an
error. barebox won't stop then, but instead continues. This is done to
be able to tell the user something went wrong without adding many
printfs. If your error is so severe that you can't continue you have to
use panic() instead.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] DT isues

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

Hello friends,

I'm trying to modify DT dynamically while Barebox is running, but it
doesn't work the way I expect. E.g. I use of_delete_node(), but `of_dump`
shows all nodes that are expected to be deleted, so the corresponding 
devices are available both from Barebox and Linux.

So is there any workaround here?

-- 
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov



_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] DT isues

[Sascha Hauer]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 01:13:42PM +0300, Seraphim Dolbilov wrote:
> Hello friends,
> 
> I'm trying to modify DT dynamically while Barebox is running, but it
> doesn't work the way I expect. E.g. I use of_delete_node(), but `of_dump`
> shows all nodes that are expected to be deleted, so the corresponding 
> devices are available both from Barebox and Linux.

I have no indication that of_delete_node() doesn't work. Are you sure
you are deleting nodes from the same tree that you actually show with
of_dump?

Note that of_delete_node() only deletes from the current barebox device
tree. When you start Linux with another devicetree then the node will
be there again of course. If you want to delete a node from the Linux
Device tree then have a look at the -f option to the of_node command.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] DT isues

[Seraphim Dolbilov]

05.02.2019, 14:52, "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>:
> I have no indication that of_delete_node() doesn't work. Are you sure
> you are deleting nodes from the same tree that you actually show with
> of_dump?
>
> Note that of_delete_node() only deletes from the current barebox device
> tree. When you start Linux with another devicetree then the node will
> be there again of course. If you want to delete a node from the Linux
> Device tree then have a look at the -f option to the of_node command.

Sorry, it was my fault, everything is OK. I have been calling it from block 
of code which was never conditionally reached.
-- 
Yours sincerely,
Seraphim Dolbilov


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [HELP] Barebox porting

[Sascha Hauer]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 03:18:04PM +0300, Seraphim Dolbilov wrote:
> Hello Sascha,
> 
> 23.01.2019, 13:17, "Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>:
> > How is the integrity checked? Some md5sum or something? Anyway, you're
> > better off doing that in C.
> 
> Well, how can I call C functions from shell without implementing own shell command?

Well you can't, but maybe I misunderstand you.

What I tried to express is that whenever you implement something complex
in barebox shell, you are better off going a step back, look what you
are trying to archieve and implement that in C.
Doing correct error handling in a limited shell is hard and printing
useful error messages even harder.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox