[SOLVED] Slarm64 on the Pinebook 1080 - help with kernel?
Slackware - ARMThis forum is for the discussion of Slackware ARM.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Thanks for this. I tried this on two non-booting images: the first non-booting commit, and a very recent commit. Neither of the resulting images booted, same black screen, no error messages. So, same problem persists.
I will try a few things this weekend. Much appreciated.
I have not given up on this, but I do not have any exciting progress to report either.
I have tried examining both image files using fdisk, parted, and file. I see no differences that would affect the boot process. I have also checked the build logs of several booting images versus several non-booting images and I see nothing that stands out about u-boot, the filesystem, ATF, etc. No error messages, nothing obvious.
I can still do the weird thing where I move all of the contents from the booting SD card to the non-booting SD card after deleting all of its contents, and it still will not boot. And the reverse is true, I can take a booting image, delete all of the contents of that card, move over the contents of a newer non-booting image, and that one will boot.
So, I can get the *content* of the latest commit to boot if I move it over to an emptied SD card of an already-booting image. However, even with content that is otherwise known to boot, an SD card made with a later commit will not even attempt to boot. Literal "Black Screen Of Death", no error messages, no noticeable disk activity, and it does not even try to boot from EMMC.
I am almost out of ideas. Next, I will try booting both images in QEMU just to see if I can generate any error messages at least. If I do, I will report back.
So, the A64 Pinebook does not like the new bootloader it seems. Can we just revert back to the older bootloader for the A64 Pinebook only in the build script?
ok, now let's find out who is to blame for ATF or u-boot.
on this to try on a non-working image one by one first sunxi-spl.bin write from the old, boot.
then again, on the initially inoperative image, write u-boot.itb and also boot
Another try, now ATF v2.3 boot-20200708.tar.xz.
The difference between those two commits is changing the version of u-boot from v2019.10 to v2020.01, although v2020.04, which is now current, should also work.
I tested both parts of the new boot file. The ATF seems to work fine, but u-boot still gives me a black screen of death. The only u-boot that works is from 20200214. All the others that have come since that I have tried give me the same BSOD effect.
I first wrote both parts to a non-booting image, and that did not work. Then I wrote the working u-boot over that, and the rest worked fine.
So, it seems I am fully dependent on the u-boot from 20200214. As long as I have that in place, all other combinations seem to work out fine.
This partially reverts changes by commit 2cc393f
("video: make BPP and ANSI configs optional") since it
caused issues with other boards (missing LCD console
output on pinebook, x86 platform or sandbox). Enable
all disabled options again and opt out of not supported
color depth in board defconfigs.
I am not sure of the implications yet, but the date range seems to be right. Hmmm.... Anyway, just posting here for future reference.
Nope, the same problem persists. Anyway, I think I figured out exactly what happened. Seems like they changed the pinebook_defconfig file upstream in u-boot. Here is an email thread about it that seems to have gone nowhere:
So, basically, there is a single line missing from pinebook_defconfig in the u-boot source tree:
Code:
---
configs/pinebook_defconfig | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/configs/pinebook_defconfig b/configs/pinebook_defconfig
index 929434e25a..306a6bc6b9 100644
--- a/configs/pinebook_defconfig
+++ b/configs/pinebook_defconfig
@@ -22,3 +22,4 @@ CONFIG_SYS_USB_EVENT_POLL_VIA_INT_QUEUE=y
# CONFIG_USB_GADGET is not set
CONFIG_VIDEO_BRIDGE=y
CONFIG_VIDEO_BRIDGE_ANALOGIX_ANX6345=y
+CONFIG_VIDEO_BPP32=y
--
And I would bet dollars to dabs that if we patched that single line back into pinebook_defconfig before building u-boot, then my problem would magically go away.
it seems I found the problem, please check boot-20200715.tar.xz
%98 that everything will work
I tried that one on a non-booting image, and the same problem is still there.
I also added a patch to the u-boot patches directory to add that missing line to the pinebook_defconfig file. My patch worked, the config file shows the added line. However, the resulting image built with the modified u-boot still does not boot.
My lead might have been a red herring, because it is more than just a screen issue. The first time boot scripts do not run either (SD does not get resized, etc.). So maybe that was just a false lead.
I will try to get on the u-boot mailing list to see if I can get some insights from there.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.