On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Eddie Dawydiuk wrote:
> Hello,
>
>>> So if you have any suggestions on
>>> this approach using the simpleImage please let me know.
>>
>> Before I answer this, what bootloader are you using?
>
> We are using a custom bootloader we developed ourselves. The bootloader
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <
b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 10:12 -0600, Ben Menchaca wrote:
> > Testing now...it looks like it (almost) works, though! Why does
> > setting no-snoop cause snooping to work? More on the effect on
> > setting th
Hi all,
Has anybody tested KGDBOC in linux-2.6.28 for Xilinx Virtex-5 PowerPC
target boards..
I just see that KGDB waits for remote connection from GDB host, but
unfortunately
Command line arguments were :
console=ttyS0 ip=bootp root=/dev/nfs rw kgdboc=ttyS0 kgdbwait
The test is been done on
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 11:30 +, - Reyneke wrote:
> Patch applies to 440EPx devices in USB EHCI host mode (USB 2.0).
>
> >From the 440EPx errata:
>
> USBH_3: Host hangs after underrun or overrun occurs
> USBH_5: EHCI0_INSNREGxx registers are reset by a Soft or Light Host
> Controller Reset
>
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 10:12 -0600, Ben Menchaca wrote:
> Testing now...it looks like it (almost) works, though! Why does
> setting no-snoop cause snooping to work? More on the effect on
> setting that bit in a few minutes...need more testing.
Maybe they got the documentation for that bit backwar
Hello,
>> So if you have any suggestions on
>> this approach using the simpleImage please let me know.
>
> Before I answer this, what bootloader are you using?
We are using a custom bootloader we developed ourselves. The bootloader is
very minimal as one of our primary design goals is a fast boot
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Eddie Dawydiuk wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> But the question remains: Why do you need simpleboot support for
>> Yosemite when you can use a uImage or cuImage with u-boot?
>
> We are developing a new board based upon the Yosemite board. Seeing as
> though the Yosemite board
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Eddie Dawydiuk wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> On a more general note; this patch also diverges from the original
>> model for simple image. The idea behind simpleimage was that it would
>> contain a fully formed device tree, with no fixups necessary. I want
>> to think care
Hello,
> On a more general note; this patch also diverges from the original
> model for simple image. The idea behind simpleimage was that it would
> contain a fully formed device tree, with no fixups necessary. I want
> to think carefully before diverging from that.
I wasn't aware of these des
Hello,
> But the question remains: Why do you need simpleboot support for
> Yosemite when you can use a uImage or cuImage with u-boot?
We are developing a new board based upon the Yosemite board. Seeing as
though the Yosemite board was supported in the mainline kernel I decided
to start with that
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:31:41PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> Wolfram, you were right. This was a bad idea. I just took me a bit
> longer to clue into it.
Instant ACK :D Thanks!
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang|
Industrial
Henk,
On Freitag, 20. Februar 2009, Henk Stegeman wrote:
> - Any suggestions to what could be wrong here? Or does the MPC5200 in
> this case only byte swap u16 reads, but a u8 read is unchanged?
You should not follow the Freescale bus signal names when you connect your
external little endian dev
12 matches
Mail list logo
