Implement empty serial_* functions for SPL without serial
support enabled. This is imperative to haave once serial
multi is enabled unconditionally.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
Cc: Marek Vasut
Cc: Tom Rini
---
common/serial.c | 12
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/c
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Implement empty serial_* functions for SPL without serial
> support enabled. This is imperative to haave once serial
> multi is enabled unconditionally.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
> Cc: Marek Vasut
> Cc: Tom Rini
> ---
> commo
Dear Tom Rini,
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Implement empty serial_* functions for SPL without serial
> > support enabled. This is imperative to haave once serial
> > multi is enabled unconditionally.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
> > Cc: Marek Vasut
>
On 09/18/2012 12:13:57 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Tom Rini,
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Implement empty serial_* functions for SPL without serial
> > support enabled. This is imperative to haave once serial
> > multi is enabled unconditionally.
> >
> > Sig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/18/12 10:13, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Tom Rini,
>
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> Implement empty serial_* functions for SPL without serial
>>> support enabled. This is imperative to haave once serial multi
Dear Tom Rini,
> On 09/18/12 10:13, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Tom Rini,
> >
> >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> Implement empty serial_* functions for SPL without serial
> >>> support enabled. This is imperative to haave once serial multi
> >>> is enabled unc
Dear Scott Wood,
> On 09/18/2012 12:13:57 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Tom Rini,
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > Implement empty serial_* functions for SPL without serial
> > > > support enabled. This is imperative to haave once serial
> > > > mul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/18/12 11:01, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Tom Rini,
>
>> On 09/18/12 10:13, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> Dear Tom Rini,
>>>
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Implement empty serial_* functions for SPL without serial
Dear Tom Rini,
> On 09/18/12 11:01, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Tom Rini,
> >
> >> On 09/18/12 10:13, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> Dear Tom Rini,
> >>>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Implement empty serial_* functions for SPL without serial
> > suppor
On 09/18/2012 01:03:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Scott Wood,
> On 09/18/2012 12:13:57 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Tom Rini,
> >
> > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > Implement empty serial_* functions for SPL without serial
> > > > support enabled. This
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/18/12 11:24, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Tom Rini,
>
>> On 09/18/12 11:01, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> Dear Tom Rini,
>>>
On 09/18/12 10:13, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Tom Rini,
>
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vas
Dear Scott Wood,
> On 09/18/2012 01:03:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Scott Wood,
> >
> > > On 09/18/2012 12:13:57 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > Dear Tom Rini,
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:21:27AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > > Implement empty serial_* functions for S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/18/12 11:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
[snip]
>> I think I got some wires crossed and was thinking about
>> printf/puts. We want those to be optimized away at compile time
>> (not pointed to a stub at link time) on an SPL that has no
Dear Tom Rini,
> On 09/18/12 11:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Scott Wood,
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I think I got some wires crossed and was thinking about
> >> printf/puts. We want those to be optimized away at compile time
> >> (not pointed to a stub at link time) on an SPL that has no output
> >> s
Dear Tom Rini,
> On 09/18/12 11:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Scott Wood,
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I think I got some wires crossed and was thinking about
> >> printf/puts. We want those to be optimized away at compile time
> >> (not pointed to a stub at link time) on an SPL that has no output
> >> s
On 09/18/2012 01:33:11 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Scott Wood,
> On 09/18/2012 01:03:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > I'd say the GCC must optimize it out anyway.
>
> I think I got some wires crossed and was thinking about printf/puts.
> We want those to be optimized away at compile time (not point
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/18/12 12:19, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Tom Rini,
>
>> On 09/18/12 11:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> Dear Scott Wood,
>>
>> [snip]
>>
I think I got some wires crossed and was thinking about
printf/puts. We want those to be optimized away
Dear Scott Wood,
> On 09/18/2012 01:33:11 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Scott Wood,
> >
> > > On 09/18/2012 01:03:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > I'd say the GCC must optimize it out anyway.
> > >
> > > I think I got some wires crossed and was thinking about printf/puts.
> > > We want those
Dear Tom Rini,
> On 09/18/12 12:19, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Tom Rini,
> >
> >> On 09/18/12 11:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> Dear Scott Wood,
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> I think I got some wires crossed and was thinking about
> printf/puts. We want those to be optimized away at compile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/18/12 12:25, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Tom Rini,
>
>> On 09/18/12 12:19, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> Dear Tom Rini,
>>>
On 09/18/12 11:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
[snip]
>> I think I got some wires crossed
Dear Tom Rini,
> On 09/18/12 12:25, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Tom Rini,
> >
> >> On 09/18/12 12:19, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> Dear Tom Rini,
> >>>
> On 09/18/12 11:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Scott Wood,
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I think I got some wires crossed and wa
On 09/18/2012 04:19:07 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Tom Rini,
> (and then see if we can change since
> as Scott notes, this needs to work for 4kb boards and that is
tight).
What exactly are the 4k boards?
Anything that uses fsl_elbc_nand is 4K. I think most (all?) of the ppc
4xx boards a
Dear Tom Rini,
> On 09/18/12 12:25, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Tom Rini,
> >
> >> On 09/18/12 12:19, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> Dear Tom Rini,
> >>>
> On 09/18/12 11:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Scott Wood,
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I think I got some wires crossed and wa
On 09/18/2012 11:51 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> (and then see if we can change since
>>> as Scott notes, this needs to work for 4kb boards and that is
>> tight).
>>
>> What exactly are the 4k boards?
>
> Anything that uses fsl_elbc_nand is 4K. I think most (all?) of the ppc
> 4xx boards are 4K.
On 09/19/2012 01:12:17 AM, Stefan Roese wrote:
On 09/18/2012 11:51 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> (and then see if we can change since
>>> as Scott notes, this needs to work for 4kb boards and that is
>> tight).
>>
>> What exactly are the 4k boards?
>
> Anything that uses fsl_elbc_nand is 4K. I think
25 matches
Mail list logo