sön 2014-03-23 klockan 12:21 +0100 skrev Olliver Schinagl:
> It's not a huge bug I suppose, but still, it's wrong isn't it. Wolfgang
> Denk even said 'this is wrong, you are right' but nothing came from it I
> think :)
So just ping the list with a response to his response asking if there is
any
On 03/22/2014 09:48 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 03/21/2014 09:14 PM, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
Hijacking your post here,
have you seen the 2GiB support patch? Any thoughts on how to proceed with that
one? Upstream atleast listens to you now ;)
2GiB seems to just work upstream, despite the
Hi,
On 03/21/2014 09:14 PM, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> Hijacking your post here,
>
> have you seen the 2GiB support patch? Any thoughts on how to proceed with
> that one? Upstream atleast listens to you now ;)
2GiB seems to just work upstream, despite them still using signed longs
for this.
Reg
Hijacking your post here,
have you seen the 2GiB support patch? Any thoughts on how to proceed
with that one? Upstream atleast listens to you now ;)
Olliver
On 03/16/2014 06:33 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
Hi,
The following series implements some of the cleanups requested as part
of the upstream
On 03/16/2014 06:33 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
Hi,
The following series implements some of the cleanups requested as part
of the upstream review process (mostly the lower hanging fruit). This is
against sunxi.git not the upstream u-boot.git (should I cc upstream
here? I decided not but maybe other
Hi,
The following series implements some of the cleanups requested as part
of the upstream review process (mostly the lower hanging fruit). This is
against sunxi.git not the upstream u-boot.git (should I cc upstream
here? I decided not but maybe other think I should).
There's one extra patch "sun
