Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 0/3] mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14

Hello Scott, Am 20.06.2014 09:59, schrieb Heiko Schocher: Hello Scott, Am 20.06.2014 01:45, schrieb Scott Wood: On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 12:34 +0200, Heiko Schocher wrote: Hello Tom, Scott, Am 18.06.2014 23:42, schrieb Tom Rini: [...] I really fear a patch "git format-patch -o ubifs-resync 2.

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 0/3] mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14

Dear Heiko, In message <53a67ed9.2090...@denx.de> you wrote: > > And I have no chance to detect this difference, when using > "git am -3 ..." ... it just remains in the code ... > > I vote for copying the linux files, marking U-Boot specific code > with __UBOOT__ ... Given the complexity of the

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] mx6: add support of multi-processor command

Hello Gabriel, On 22-06-14 01:55, Gabriel Huau wrote: This allows u-boot to load different OS or Bare Metal application on the different cores of the i.MX6DQ. For example: we can run Android on cpu0 and a RT OS like QNX/FreeRTOS on cpu1. Signed-off-by: Gabriel Huau funny.. +int is_core_valid

Re: [U-Boot] m68k: Build problems on some boards

I'll really appreciate any help on this. On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Vasili Galka wrote: > Hi, > > I've installed a m68k-elf toolchain (based on gcc 4.8.1) and tried > building all m68k boards on latest u-boot/master (MAKEALL -a m68k). > While the build succeeds for most of the boards, the f

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] mx6: add support of multi-processor command

Hi Gabriel, This allows u-boot to load different OS or Bare Metal application on the different cores of the i.MX6DQ. For example: we can run Android on cpu0 and a RT OS like QNX/FreeRTOS on cpu1. I think this explanation is a little misleading - if you run unmodified versions of Android & som

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] mx6: add support of multi-processor command

Hi Nikolay, I agree that you have to modify those OS to support 'multi-OS' on different core but this customization is not part of u-boot in my sense. For the second point, I have to disagree, the imx6 is totally appropriate for AMP/multi-OS, in my case, I wasn't thinking about virtualization

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] imx: nitrogen6x: Add support for GENERIC_BOARD

Thanks Fabio, On 06/21/2014 02:41 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Eric Nelson > wrote: >> --- a/include/configs/nitrogen6x.h >> +++ b/include/configs/nitrogen6x.h >> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ >> #define CONFIG_REVISION_TAG >> #define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD >> >> +#define C

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] mx6: add support of multi-processor command

Hi Gabriel, On 6/22/2014 5:24 PM, gabriel huau wrote: Hi Nikolay, I agree that you have to modify those OS to support 'multi-OS' on different core but this customization is not part of u-boot in my sense. For the second point, I have to disagree, the imx6 is totally appropriate for AMP/multi

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] mx6: add support of multi-processor command

Agreed, I'll submit a patch to fix that. Regards, Gabriel On 06/22/2014 02:14 AM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote: Hello Gabriel, On 22-06-14 01:55, Gabriel Huau wrote: This allows u-boot to load different OS or Bare Metal application on the different cores of the i.MX6DQ. For example: we can run Androi

[U-Boot] [PATCH v3] mx6: add support of multi-processor command

This allows u-boot to load different OS or Bare Metal application on the different cores of the i.MX6DQ. For example: we can run Android on cpu0 and a RT OS like QNX/FreeRTOS on cpu1. Signed-off-by: Gabriel Huau --- Changes for v2: - Add a commit log message to explain the purpose of this

[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM:asm:io.h use static inline

When compiling u-boot with W=1 the extern inline void for read* is likely causing the most noise. gcc / clang will warn there is never a actual declaration for these functions. Instead of declaring these extern make them static inline so it is actually declared. cc: Albert ARIBAUD Signed-off-by:

[U-Boot] [PATCH] lib: div64: add missing include

Include the function its prototype to prevent the warning that it has no prototype. Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee --- lib/div64.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/lib/div64.c b/lib/div64.c index e688a91..795ef0e 100644 --- a/lib/div64.c +++ b/lib/div64.c @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ *

[U-Boot] [PATCH] common: commands: make commands static

Since most commands are not public, make them static. This prevents warnings that no common prototype is available. Signed-off-by: Jeroen Hofstee --- common/cmd_bdinfo.c | 3 ++- common/cmd_cache.c | 4 ++-- common/cmd_eeprom.c | 6 +++--- common/cmd_ext2.c | 8 common/cmd_fs.c

[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] env_fat: use get_device_and_partition() during env save and load

From: "Wu, Josh" Use get_device_and_partition() is better since: 1. It will call the device initialize function internally. So we can remove the mmc intialization code to save many lines. 2. It is used by fatls/fatload/fatwrite. So saveenv & load env should use it too. 3. It can parse the "D:P",

[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/2] README: document the CONFIG_ENV_IS_IN_FAT option

Signed-off-by: Josh Wu --- README | 31 +++ 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) diff --git a/README b/README index 7129df8..0c9fda3 100644 --- a/README +++ b/README @@ -4133,6 +4133,37 @@ but it can not erase, write this NOR flash by SRIO or PCIE interface.

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] patman: Only apply patches when we know the original HEAD

Hi Simon, On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:27:06 -0600 Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Masahiro, > > On 11 June 2014 23:27, Simon Glass wrote: > > When patman applies the patches it checks out a new branch, uses 'git am' > > to apply the patches one by one, and then tries to go back to the old > > branch. If y

[U-Boot] [U-boot] Does u-boot.bin only include a data section?

Hi, experts: I am studying u-boo.bin format(which is got from u-boot, an ELF format bin). I run the below command: Objdump -h -b binary -m arm u-boot.bin Found only a .data section was displayed. So , does u-boot.bin include only a .data section? Best wishes, __

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] patman: Only apply patches when we know the original HEAD

Hi Masahiro, On 22 June 2014 21:19, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Simon, > > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:27:06 -0600 > Simon Glass wrote: > >> Hi Masahiro, >> >> On 11 June 2014 23:27, Simon Glass wrote: >> > When patman applies the patches it checks out a new branch, uses 'git am' >> > to apply the

Re: [U-Boot] Trying to reduce boot time of U-BOOT zynq-microzed.

Hi, On 20 June 2014 03:54, Uzair Zaidi wrote: > I have `zynq-microzed` board. > > Here is my log messages of `U-BOOT`. > > [Fri Jun 20 12:07:25.468 2014] U-Boot 2013.07 (Jun 20 2014 - 11:58:49) See CONFIG_BOOTSTAGE which will measure the time and CONFIG_BOOTSTAGE_REPORT which will print a re

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] patman: Only apply patches when we know the original HEAD

Hi Simon, On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:39:26 -0600 Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Masahiro, > > On 22 June 2014 21:19, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:27:06 -0600 > > Simon Glass wrote: > > > >> Hi Masahiro, > >> > >> On 11 June 2014 23:27, Simon Glass wrote: > >>

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] patman: Only apply patches when we know the original HEAD

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > The whitespace problems are not common but they do happen sometimes - > or at least I have seen it at times. Unless perhaps checkpatch has got > smarter? Couldn't ./scripts/cleanpatch be used to fix the whitespace issues? ___

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] patman: Only apply patches when we know the original HEAD

Hi Masahiro, On Jun 22, 2014 9:51 PM, "Masahiro Yamada" wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:39:26 -0600 > Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Masahiro, > > > > On 22 June 2014 21:19, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 10:27:06 -0600 > > > Simon Glas

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] patman: Only apply patches when we know the original HEAD

Hi, On Jun 22, 2014 10:23 PM, "Fabio Estevam" wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > The whitespace problems are not common but they do happen sometimes - > > or at least I have seen it at times. Unless perhaps checkpatch has got > > smarter? > > Couldn't ./scripts

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] patman: Only apply patches when we know the original HEAD

Hi Simon, On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 22:54:43 -0600 Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On Jun 22, 2014 10:23 PM, "Fabio Estevam" wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > The whitespace problems are not common but they do happen sometimes - > > > or at least I have seen