Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support Raspberry Pi 3b Plus #6

Closed
andhe opened this issue Aug 8, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

Support Raspberry Pi 3b Plus #6

andhe opened this issue Aug 8, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@andhe
Copy link
Contributor

andhe commented Aug 8, 2018

Hi,

Duplicating the recipe for 3b to support 3b-plus doesn't look like a good idea to me, but I think I might have found a different solution (which I haven't tested at all yet).

The kernel and bootloader should have support for 3b-plus in Debian Buster in current versions (u-boot 2018.5 and linux 4.17). The 3b-plus has a separate dtb though, so the right one needs to be selected at boot.

AIUI Just commenting out this line should do it:

U_BOOT_FDT="broadcom/bcm2837-rpi-3-b.dtb"

in https://github.com/go-debos/debos-recipes/blob/master/debian/arm64/image-rpi3/u-boot-menu/etc/default/u-boot

That should make u-boot-update use "fdtdir" instead of "fdt", which leaves figuring out the exact dtb filename to u-boot (which has the strings for different boards in ./board/raspberrypi/rpi/rpi.c).

Also note that distribution has to be Buster (not Stretch) for this to work (for 3b-plus atleast).

Comments? Thoughts? Is it ok to bump to buster to be able to support both pis with one recipe?

andhe added a commit to andhe/debos-recipes that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2018
By not explicitly specifying a dtb filename, u-boot will probe
the hardware and use a suitable filename and then go search
in U_BOOT_FDT_DIR for that. This means it's possible to use
the same configuration for multiple different boards (by just
shipping all of their dtbs).

See go-debos#6
@andhe
Copy link
Contributor Author

andhe commented Jul 22, 2019

While some info in here could be useful for unifying things, as discussed in #13, the discussion about it can continue in #13.

The basic issue this bug report was opened about is resolved thus it can now be closed.

@andhe andhe closed this as completed Jul 22, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant