On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:26:12AM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Wolfgang,
>> Ladislav Michl wrote:
>>> That's perfectly understandable. I'm just trying to point out, that
>>> "design flaws can be fixed incrementaly, without breaking anything"
>>> attitude does not ref
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
[snip]
> There are broken boards around, too - of course. There are those
> board maintainers who simply dump their stuff on us and then never
> show up again with any contributions any more.
>
> I don't know how we could prevent that. It's probably happening with
>
Dear Ladislav,
In message <20090422132536.ga2...@localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
>
> > What else should a maintainer do? He have not all boards to try the
> > new code! You can just look at Coding Style, clean compile and maybe
> > he see, that this Code couldn;t work ...
>
> That's perfectly
Dear Robert,
In message <20090422071711.gh5...@pengutronix.de> you wrote:
>
> > > One of these boards is the Auerswald Innokom, a board Robert once
> > > ported. We probably still have it somewhere @Pengutronix, but nobody in
> > > the world has any interest in running a top of tree U-Boot on it.
Hello Heiko!
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> Hello Ladislav
>
> Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > May I? Last time I looked at mainline U-Boot about year ago, sending few
> > patches and it was working for me. Since then some changes (only minor ones
> > from design pesp
Hello Ladislav
Ladislav Michl wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 01:12:07AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> One of these boards is the Auerswald Innokom, a board Robert once
>>> ported. We probably still have it somewhere @Pengutronix, but nobody in
>>> the world has any interest in running a top of
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 01:12:07AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > One of these boards is the Auerswald Innokom, a board Robert once
> > ported. We probably still have it somewhere @Pengutronix, but nobody in
> > the world has any interest in running a top of tree U-Boot on it. Still
> > it is in t
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 01:12:07AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > How can you possibly ever change the API for the flash driver with 201
> > different flash drivers in the tree without marking something as broken?
>
> Well, *if* we wanted to change the API, that would be a reason to get
> rid of t
Dear Sascha,
In message <20090421223025.ga21...@pengutronix.de> you wrote:
>
> s...@octopus:~/octopus/u-boot/u-boot find board -name "flash.c" | wc -l
> 201
> s...@octopus:~/octopus/u-boot/u-boot find board -name "config.mk"| wc -l
> 411
>
> So nearly half of the boards in U-Boot seem to be unmai
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:08:38PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Sascha,
>
> In message <20090421182102.gz21...@pengutronix.de> you wrote:
> >
> > > This is not quite correct. What I consider important is an evo-
> > > lutionary path - this may include bigger changes and reorganizations
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:08:38PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Sascha,
>
> In message <20090421182102.gz21...@pengutronix.de> you wrote:
> >
> > > This is not quite correct. What I consider important is an evo-
> > > lutionary path - this may include bigger changes and reorganizations
Dear Sascha,
In message <20090421182102.gz21...@pengutronix.de> you wrote:
>
> > This is not quite correct. What I consider important is an evo-
> > lutionary path - this may include bigger changes and reorganizations,
> > but I consider it a bad idea to not provide a reasonable migration
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 04:40:04PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> just to put a few points right:
>
> In message <20090421070431.gx5...@pengutronix.de> you wrote:
> >
> > So our intention was and is:
> >
> > 1. Wolfgang has a focus on stability and gradual changes. We respect thi
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 04:40:04PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > 1. Wolfgang has a focus on stability and gradual changes. We respect this
> >political position because it is a *good* one.
>
> This is not quite correct. What I consider important is an evo-
> lutionary path - this may in
Dear Robert,
just to put a few points right:
In message <20090421070431.gx5...@pengutronix.de> you wrote:
>
> So our intention was and is:
>
> 1. Wolfgang has a focus on stability and gradual changes. We respect this
>political position because it is a *good* one.
This is not quite correct.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> What ever will happen - I don't see *any* reason for whatever Mike is trying
> to enforce here.
I don't see how Mike is trying to nor can enforce anything like that. He's a
single person expressing his views.
But I do second the notion that good id
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:29:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> [stupid attempt of a flame war deleted]
For the audience which is wondering about what's going on here, I have
no idea.
The idea behind B-Boot-v2 is: U-Boot itself is a *great* bootloader from
the user's poing of view. It is the be
On Apr 20, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
>
> In message <20090420120239.gc19...@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote:
>>
>>> Beyond adding Kconfig's what's left to be done?
>> I've write a first batch of the generic Kconfig
>> for commmands, env, fs, disk
On Monday 20 April 2009 14:42:24 Scott Wood wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > no one said otherwise. please read the thread context before chiming in.
> > if you had, you'd know that i was taking issue with the position of
> > "let's not do XXX in v1 because it exists in v2",
>
> I don't recall
Dear Mike,
In message <200904201120.51435.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> i never said "kill it now"; quite the opposite really. in fact, it looks
> like
> you really arent taking your own saying to heart. my point is to look to the
> future and stop wasting resources. if v1 incorporates a
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <200904201042.10253.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> my concern isnt really narrow to the Blackfin port. i was using it as a
> practical example. we've talked about v2 in the past as the answer to many
> of
> our problems and so we dont bother doing it in v1.
Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
In message <20090420120239.gc19...@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote:
>
> > Beyond adding Kconfig's what's left to be done?
> I've write a first batch of the generic Kconfig
> for commmands, env, fs, disk, lib_generic and drivers
>
> I've start to add the at91 ar
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> no one said otherwise. please read the thread context before chiming in. if
> you had, you'd know that i was taking issue with the position of "let's not
> do
> XXX in v1 because it exists in v2",
I don't recall anyone advocating that position, other than your original
On Monday 20 April 2009 11:34:33 Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:20:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 20 April 2009 10:53:39 Robert Schwebel wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > U-Boot-v2 is used here to do real work i
On Monday 20 April 2009 11:39:52 Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:20:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Monday 20 April 2009 10:53:39 Robert Schwebel wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Mike Frysinge
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:20:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Monday 20 April 2009 10:53:39 Robert Schwebel wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > > > U-Boot-v2 is used here to do real work in
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:20:50AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 20 April 2009 10:53:39 Robert Schwebel wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > U-Boot-v2 is used here to do real work in our projects. If it isn't
> > > > what you need, it is perf
On Monday 20 April 2009 10:53:39 Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > U-Boot-v2 is used here to do real work in our projects. If it isn't
> > > what you need, it is perfectly fine if you ignore it.
> >
> > my concern isnt really narrow to th
Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> U-Boot-v2 is used here to do real work in our projects. If it isn't
>>> what you need, it is perfectly fine if you ignore it.
>> my concern isnt really narrow to the Blackfin port. i was using it as
>> a pr
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > U-Boot-v2 is used here to do real work in our projects. If it isn't
> > what you need, it is perfectly fine if you ignore it.
>
> my concern isnt really narrow to the Blackfin port. i was using it as
> a practical example. we've ta
On Monday 20 April 2009 10:04:14 Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 09:49:38AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > If you aim for feature completeness, use v1 and don't care about v2.
> > > v2 is for people who care about *design*.
> >
> > so v2 is good for thinking about things while
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 09:49:38AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you aim for feature completeness, use v1 and don't care about v2.
> > v2 is for people who care about *design*.
>
> so v2 is good for thinking about things while v1 is good for people
> who want to do real work. if that's the st
On Monday 20 April 2009 02:52:44 Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:56:53AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > We have even Blackfin support in v2, and that for almost all of the
> > > time it is actually there. Sure - if you need feature completeness,
> > > you'll have to stay wit
On 11:38 Sun 19 Apr , Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Apr 18, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've upload on the u-boot-arm tree in kconfig branch
>> some patch on which I work to all us to use Kconfig
>>
>> It's a dev branch not all patch a
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:56:53AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > We have even Blackfin support in v2, and that for almost all of the
> > time it is actually there. Sure - if you need feature completeness,
> > you'll have to stay with v1. Our aim is a sane design, and I'm still
> > not convinced
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 04:59:41PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> What's the summary of features that v2 has that v1 doesnt?
http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-v2.git;a=blob;f=README;hb=HEAD
rsc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions
On Sunday 19 April 2009 15:50:46 Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 03:18:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > so, does it make sense to look at the feature set that v2 brings to
> > the table and get it into u-boot v1? ive never personally looked at
> > v2, but if it means i need to
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 04:59:41PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Apr 19, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Robert Schwebel wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:54:41PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> u-boot-v2 is an interesting approach in several aspects, but since it
>>> was made publicly visible nearly two
On Apr 19, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:54:41PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> u-boot-v2 is an interesting approach in several aspects, but since it
>> was made publicly visible nearly two years ago it did not collect
>> much
>> of a community around it.
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 03:18:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> so, does it make sense to look at the feature set that v2 brings to
> the table and get it into u-boot v1? ive never personally looked at
> v2, but if it means i need to redo all of my Blackfin core/board code,
> that doesnt sound ve
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:54:41PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> u-boot-v2 is an interesting approach in several aspects, but since it
> was made publicly visible nearly two years ago it did not collect much
> of a community around it.
Right; part of the reason is it was always something we used t
On Apr 18, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've upload on the u-boot-arm tree in kconfig branch
> some patch on which I work to all us to use Kconfig
>
> It's a dev branch not all patch are perfect
> but it will be nice if other cou
Dear Mike,
In message <200904181518.33357.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> so, does it make sense to look at the feature set that v2 brings to the table
> and get it into u-boot v1 ? ive never personally looked at v2, but if it
> means i need to redo all of my Blackfin core/board code, that d
On Saturday 18 April 2009 14:54:41 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message Mike wrote:
> > > I've upload on the u-boot-arm tree in kconfig branch
> > > some patch on which I work to all us to use Kconfig
>
> ...
>
> > i thought this was one of the points of u-boot-2 ?
>
> u-boot-v2 is an interesting
Dear Mike,
In message <200904181429.56281.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> > I've upload on the u-boot-arm tree in kconfig branch
> > some patch on which I work to all us to use Kconfig
...
> i thought this was one of the points of u-boot-2 ?
u-boot-v2 is an interesting approach in several
Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
In message <20090418162530.gd1...@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote:
>
> I've upload on the u-boot-arm tree in kconfig branch
> some patch on which I work to all us to use Kconfig
If you want to see code review and testing take place, then please
fol
On Saturday 18 April 2009 12:25:30 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> I've upload on the u-boot-arm tree in kconfig branch
> some patch on which I work to all us to use Kconfig
>
> It's a dev branch not all patch are perfect
> but it will be nice if other could help t
Hi all,
I've upload on the u-boot-arm tree in kconfig branch
some patch on which I work to all us to use Kconfig
It's a dev branch not all patch are perfect
but it will be nice if other could help to finish it
and help me to create all the Kconfig files
Be
48 matches
Mail list logo
