On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:07:14 +0200
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote:
WD, if you have time, please test - I don't have a tqm834x board. TIA.
Tested-by: Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de
Great, thank you!
= run load
Speed: 1000, full duplex
Using TSEC0 device
TFTP from server 192.168.1.1; our
Dear Kim Phillips,
In message 20090821155953.0e1415ca.kim.phill...@freescale.com you wrote:
[Sorry, I didn't find time yet to try bisecting this, but maybe this
rings a bell to you?]
sorry, networking works as fast as lightning here. memory config? mac
address collision perhaps?
MAC
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:08:43 +0200
Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote:
Dear Kim Phillips,
In message 20090821155953.0e1415ca.kim.phill...@freescale.com you wrote:
[Sorry, I didn't find time yet to try bisecting this, but maybe this
rings a bell to you?]
sorry, networking works as
Dear Kim Phillips,
In message 20090819200321.a0900c41.kim.phill...@freescale.com you wrote:
commit 9993e196da707a0a1cd4584f1fcef12382c1c144 mpc83xx: convert all
remaining boards over to 83XX_GENERIC_PCI remapped pci windows on
tqm834x to make it more consistent with the other 83xx boards.
commit 9993e196da707a0a1cd4584f1fcef12382c1c144 mpc83xx: convert all
remaining boards over to 83XX_GENERIC_PCI remapped pci windows on
tqm834x to make it more consistent with the other 83xx boards. During
that time however, the author failed to realize that FLASH_BASE was
occupying the same range
5 matches
Mail list logo
