Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] fman: insert the Fman firmware into the device tree

On May 3, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: The Fman device tree node binding allows for the entire Fman firmware binary data to be embedded in the device tree. This eliminates the need to have NOR flash mapped to Linux just so that the Fman driver can see the firmware. The location of

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] [v3] powerpc/85xx: add support the ePAPR phandle property

On May 10, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: The ePAPR specification says that phandle properties should be called phandle, and not linux,phandle. To facilitate the migration from linux,phandle to phandle, we update fdt_qportal() to use the new function, fdt_create_phandle(). This

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 1/2] powerpc/mpc85xx: Add clear_ddr_tlbs function

On Jul 18, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Becky Bruce wrote: This is useful when we just want to wipe out the TLBs. There's currently a function that resets the ddr tlbs to a different value; it is changed to utilize this function. The new function can be used in conjunction with setup_ddr_tlbs() for a

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 2/2] board/tqm85xx: Create and tear down TLB for get_ram_size()

On Jul 18, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Becky Bruce wrote: We need a TLB entry to call get_ram_size(); the common code doesn't create one until *after* fixed_sdram() has determined the size. So we set up tlbs for the max possible size and tear them down once we're done with get_ram_size(); the common

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver framework for Marvell SoCs

-Original Message- From: Ajay Bhargav [mailto:ajay.bhar...@einfochips.com] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 10:08 AM To: Prafulla Wadaskar Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver framework for Marvell SoCs Hi Prafulla, Thank you so much for

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver framework for Marvell SoCs

Hi Prafulla, I don't mind if you merge these two patches, any future support will add gpio.h Let them be separate easy to track changes :) I will be sending updated patches. Regards, Ajay Bhargav ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de

[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver framework for Marvell SoCs

This patch adds generic GPIO driver framework support for Marvell SoCs. To enable GPIO driver define CONFIG_MARVELL_GPIO and for GPIO commands define CONFIG_CMD_GPIO in your board configuration file. Signed-off-by: Ajay Bhargav ajay.bhar...@einfochips.com --- drivers/gpio/Makefile |1 +

[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Marvell SoC Armada100

This patch adds support for generic GPIO driver framework for Marvell SoC Armada100. Signed-off-by: Ajay Bhargav ajay.bhar...@einfochips.com --- arch/arm/include/asm/arch-armada100/armada100.h |4 + arch/arm/include/asm/arch-armada100/gpio.h | 95 +++ 2 files

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Marvell SoC Armada100

Hi Ajay, On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Ajay Bhargav ajay.bhar...@einfochips.com wrote: This patch adds support for generic GPIO driver framework for Marvell SoC Armada100. Signed-off-by: Ajay Bhargav ajay.bhar...@einfochips.com ---  arch/arm/include/asm/arch-armada100/armada100.h |    4

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Marvell SoC Armada100

Hi Lei, Why not put this structure into driver file? I think this register is not easy to change, and put this into arch .h would make the work duplicated, as each arch need to redefine the same structure again. Other architectures may/may not have the same structure. One can redefine

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Marvell SoC Armada100

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Ajay Bhargav ajay.bhar...@einfochips.com wrote: Hi Lei, Why not put this structure into driver file? I think this register is not easy to change, and put this into arch .h would make the work duplicated, as each arch need to redefine the same structure

[U-Boot] [GIT pull] Please pull u-boot-mpc85xx

The following changes since commit 74fac70084bb040342fafc3b0d2ef50fbe35646f: Merge branch 'master' of git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mmc (2011-07-19 22:27:07 +0200) are available in the git repository at: git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx.git master Becky Bruce (2): powerpc/mpc85xx: Add

Re: [U-Boot] u-boot using UART1

Don, Please ask u-boot questions on the u-boot mailing list. On 22/07/11 01:03, Don McCune wrote: We are bringing up a board based on the OMAPL137 processor. The board is similar to the Spectrum Digital Evm board; however it has used UART2 for something else, so we need to make UAR1 the

Re: [U-Boot] u-boot using UART1

Dear Nick Thompson, In message 4e293329.9050...@ge.com you wrote: Could you tell us how to modify u-boot to use UART1 for its console? $ grep UART include/configs/da830evm.h #define CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_COM1 DAVINCI_UART2_BASE /* Base address of UART2 */ #define CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_CLK

[U-Boot] 报关--单证

您好! 本公司是一家拥有进出口报关等一切出口单证代理公司，有着丰富的 出口经验和优势的价格，可以 为贵公司代理以下出口业务 1.提供核销单（报关单） 2.CO产地证. 普惠证(FA,FE,FF,亚太,中巴，大使馆签等) 3.买单报关，商检，拖车 4.实力报关, 请存留备用，欢迎你的来电咨询： 联系人：张先生 联系电话：0755-25420177 手机：13686868548 QQ：122062143 邮箱：szyongdongjia...@163.com 122062...@qq.com

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Marvell SoC Armada100

Hi Ajay, On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Ajay Bhargav ajay.bhar...@einfochips.com wrote: Hi Lei, I think if have no such same structure, the gpio driver may need to be rewrite, since the meaning of the register may also change. so should this be changed back to Armada100 gpio? How bout

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Marvell SoC Armada100

Hi Lei, Thank you for confirming. What do you mean by changed back to Armada100 gpio? Well just incase GPIO register set is different for different archs this current driver need to be renamed as armada100 gpio. So if other Marvell SoCs are having similar register set then we can have a

Re: [U-Boot] u-boot environment variable parsing

Hi wd, Thanks for the reply. Helped me a lot. However see below On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 18:41:30, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Hebbar, Gururaja, In message c82ba3053cfd354aacbd25efbd2a4ec603f0193...@dbde02.ent.ti.com you wrote: The question here is mmc_args re-uses variable bootargs

Re: [U-Boot] [GIT PULL] integratorap patches

Hi Albert, since I think we have now resolved the remaining issue with the build system I'm reiterating this pull request. Changes from last time: - MAINTAINERS change also covers me taking over the integratorcp board - Build the integratorap/cp variants using boards.cfg configuration The

[U-Boot] [PATCH] cleanup: Fix typos and misspellings in various files.

Recieve/Receive recieve/receive Interupt/Interrupt interupt/interrupt Addres/Address addres/address Signed-off-by: Mike Williams m...@mikebwilliams.com --- arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/lpc2292/mmc_hw.c |4 ++-- arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/start.S |2 +-

[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/1] Removed obsolete Netstal boards

Hi I left Netstal Maschinen a couple of months ago and found a part time job at another company (www.solcept.ch) where some of its customers use U-Boot and linux for their products. Beside that I am working free-lance on a free software project (www.elexis.ch, An Eclipse RCP program for all

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Marvell SoC Armada100

-Original Message- From: Ajay Bhargav [mailto:ajay.bhar...@einfochips.com] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 3:34 PM To: Lei Wen Cc: Prafulla Wadaskar; u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] gpio: Add GPIO driver for Marvell SoC Armada100 Hi Lei, Thank you for

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] command sspi: add write-only flag '.w' (discard read data)

Am Donnerstag, den 21.07.2011, 11:01 +0200 schrieb Detlev Zundel: Hi Mike, [...] Following the common U-Boot way to do this, I'd suggest sspi [bus:]cs[.mode] bit_len dout [din_env_var] and either never print the read result to the console (my favorite) or only if no env variable

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] command sspi: add write-only flag '.w' (discard read data)

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 14:02, Andreas Pretzsch wrote: So how to proceed with the sspi command ? i think any proposals pending for the sspi command could be handled with a better hush implementation, so i'd prefer to go that route as the bigger picture Also, given any rework of the sspi