From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gary Thomas To: Hugo Tyson Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [ECOS] Redboot and edb7211 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:39:00 -0000 Message-id: References: X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00263.html On 20-Apr-2001 Hugo Tyson wrote: > > Jonathan Larmour writes: >> Gary Thomas wrote: >> > On 19-Apr-2001 Jonathan Larmour wrote: >> > > Perhaps the message is the initial checksum error reported when no Flash >> > > Image System has been created yet. If you do a "fis init" it may just go >> > > away. >> > >> > These two items are not related in any way. >> > >> > * 'fis init' rebuilds only the FIS directory. >> > >> > * The warning about checksum failures is about the 'fconfig' database. One >> > needs to run 'fconfig' to fix that. >> >> But presumably you can't do an fconfig until you've done an "fis init", so >> both steps are required in order. > > Not sure. I think the fconfig stuff is placed where it's placed and that's > that. "fis init" happens to make an entry that decribes where fconfig is > placed, to help the user know what flash is used for what, and to keep the > fis from using that flash itself. But the fconfig does not refer to the > fis to determine what flash to use; it's not that way round. > Totally correct. > If RedBoot startup reports a bad checksum, and the system appears to hang > without a RedBoot> prompt, it's probably trying to use BOOTP to get an IP > address. Either wait a while, or build a RedBoot with no networking > included and try that, use it to initialize the flash then upgrade to one > with net - no net => no BOOTP => no delay at startup. > Most likely this would make things seem to get "stuck". Wait for a little while (maybe 30 seconds) and the RedBoot prompt should appear. > Warning, if you have a valid fconfig block in flash, but a new > configuration of RedBoot adds some new keys, you might have to explicitly > erase (using "fis erase -f 0x503e0000 -l 0x10000" or whatever) the old > fconfig data and reset it all to get the new keys to "take". Doesn't > happen often that a new configuration changes things like this - except > when debugging a whole new port and messing with extra fco settings - but > mentioned just in case... This should no longer be the case, with the newest 'fconfig' layout and 32 bit checksums. [It did use to be the case however]