[U-Boot] [RFC 2/4] mxc_nand: Update driver to work with i.MX31.

2009-11-08 Thread Magnus Lilja
Comment: Given how mxc_nand.c looks like (it was written with i.MX27 in mind), this is the straight forward way of adding i.MX31 support. Personally I don't like the #ifdef's and prefer the solution presented in a later patch in this series. --- drivers/mtd/nand/mxc_nand.c |8 +++- 1

[U-Boot] [RFC 3/4] MX31: Activate NAND support for i.MX31 Litekit board.

2009-11-08 Thread Magnus Lilja
--- include/configs/imx31_litekit.h | 11 +++ 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/configs/imx31_litekit.h b/include/configs/imx31_litekit.h index 6131008..7e8ddbb 100644 --- a/include/configs/imx31_litekit.h +++ b/include/configs/imx31_litekit.h @@

[U-Boot] [RFC 0/4] MXC: Add NAND support for i.MX31

2009-11-08 Thread Magnus Lilja
Hi all, This series adds NAND support for i.MX31 using the mxc_nand that was added for i.MX27. The same NAND Flash Controller is used in i.MX31. I've done some limited run-time testing on the Litekit using small page NAND and it seems to work. I have embedded a question in patch #2 and #4, this

[U-Boot] [RFC 4/4] MXC: Reorganize 16 bit nand detection.

2009-11-08 Thread Magnus Lilja
Alternative solution for supporting 16 bit NAND detection for the i.MX27 and i.MX31 SoCs. This moves the SoC specific code to the SoC header file leaving mxc_nand.c free from #ifdef's (in this respect). Question: Is this approach acceptable/preferred over having #ifdef's for different SoCs in

[U-Boot] [RFC 1/4] MX31: Add struct definition for clock control module in i.MX31.

2009-11-08 Thread Magnus Lilja
Comment: The struct is called system_control_registers only because the mxc_nand.c uses that name. For i.MX31 these registers are called Clock Control Registers so the struct name should be clock_control_registers, while for i.MX27 they are called System Control Registers. ---

Re: [U-Boot] Error while compiling U-Boot for beagleboard

2009-11-08 Thread Chetan Nanda
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Dirk Behme dirk.be...@googlemail.comwrote: Chetan Nanda wrote: Hi List, I am trying to compile U-Boot for beagleboard. I have run following commands: make CROSS_COMPILE=arm-none-linux-gnueabi- mrproper make CROSS_COMPILE=arm-none-linux-gnueabi-

[U-Boot] Bill Johnson has invited you as a colleague to Work Kingdom

2009-11-08 Thread Bill Johnson
You have been invited to the most advanced business trade portal WorkKingdom Is A New Revolutionary System For Business Professionals World Wide. Benefit From Increased Revenues, Profits From Having Customers, Suppliers Contact You For Networking/trade Possibilities. Its A Totally 100 Percent

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix build failure in examples/standalone

2009-11-08 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Mike Frysinger, In message 200911061122.16814.vap...@gentoo.org you wrote: Just after pressing this ENTER, I tried the following: [Moved $(ELF-y) to end of the assignment and kill trailing spaces] -ELF := $(ELF-y) $(ELF-$(ARCH)) $(ELF-$(BOARD)) $(ELF-$(CPU)) +ELF :=

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Fix build failure in examples/standalone

2009-11-08 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Premi, Sanjeev, In message b85a65d85d7eb246be421b3fb0fbb59301de31f...@dbde02.ent.ti.com you wrote: I was surprised too. It is the first time ever I have seen this problem with any Makefile over years. To debug I tried this: ... Makefile:47: *** *** COBJS evaluates to [hello_world.o

Re: [U-Boot] Quick sanity test after my NAND patches

2009-11-08 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jerry Van Baren, In message 4af4971b.9080...@ge.com you wrote: This might not work as git-am will complain about not being able to apply clean. I may be missing something, but if you hand-edit the patches so that they are still valid patches, they will apply cleanly. In my hand