fix(linux): Corrected the fastboot steps#716
Conversation
vinuchandran-av
commented
May 29, 2026
- Corrected the A53 Uboot variable
- Corrected the defconfig for AM62x A53
- Added reference to emmc configuration
- Corrected DFU bootmode for all SoCs
- Added snagfactory board name for AM62A yaml config
e07e805 to
bdc1f3e
Compare
* Corrected the A53 Uboot variable * Corrected the defconfig for AM62x A53 * Added reference to emmc configuration * Corrected DFU bootmode for all SoCs * Added snagfactory board name for AM62A yaml config Signed-off-by: Vinuchandran A V <x1123550@ti.com>
bdc1f3e to
b7f53b6
Compare
| * - am64xx-evm | ||
| - am6x | ||
| - am6442 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's up with the reorder here? Not like these are sorted in any reasonable manner anyway.
| .. ifconfig:: CONFIG_part_variant in ('AM62X') | ||
|
|
||
| AM62X (SK-AM62B-P1) - USB-DFU Boot | ||
|
|
||
| .. code-block:: text | ||
|
|
||
| SW2 - BOOTMODE[8:15] = 00000000 | ||
| SW1 - BOOTMODE[0:7] = 11001010 | ||
|
|
||
| .. ifconfig:: CONFIG_part_variant in ('AM62AX') | ||
|
|
||
| AM62A (SK-AM62A-LP) - USB-DFU Boot | ||
|
|
||
| .. code-block:: text | ||
|
|
||
| SW3 - BOOTMODE[8:15] = 00000000 | ||
| SW2 - BOOTMODE[0:7] = 11001010 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| .. code-block:: text | ||
|
|
||
| SW2 - BOOTMODE[8:11] = 0000 | ||
| SW3 - BOOTMODE[12:15] = 0000 | ||
| SW4 - BOOTMODE[0:7] = 11001010 | ||
|
|
||
| .. ifconfig:: CONFIG_part_variant in ('AM64X') | ||
|
|
||
| AM64X (TMDS64EVM) - USB-DFU Boot | ||
|
|
||
| .. code-block:: text | ||
|
|
||
| SW2 - BOOTMODE[0:7] = 11001010 | ||
| SW3 - BOOTMODE[8:15] = 00000000 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All of the other sections are ordered by bit value, you sure you want to break that pattern?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@StaticRocket This makes it more clear and easier to follow. I've seen people getting confused in e2e's and I recommend this way, but not a necessity. Please do let me know if the older format is required.
The corrections still hold true. Earlier, only a single value was shown for all SoCs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this is explicitly to help the user then I guess it's fine. Do the older sections need to be reworked then?