On 07/01/2014 04:57 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2014 12:51 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Loading: ##
>>> 4.3 MiB/s
>>> done
>>> Bytes transferred = 18003 (4653 hex)
>>> CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [40008000, 4000c653]
>> OK, that particular e
On 07/02/2014 12:51 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
[...]
Loading: ##
4.3 MiB/s
done
Bytes transferred = 18003 (4653 hex)
CACHE: Misaligned operation at range [40008000, 4000c653]
OK, that particular error happens well after the network transfer phase
of the tftp comman
On 07/01/2014 04:47 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
>
> On 07/02/2014 12:36 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 07/01/2014 04:34 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
>>> On 07/01/2014 01:22 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
On 07/01/2014 01:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Can you edit arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/cache.c
On 07/02/2014 12:36 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 07/01/2014 04:34 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
On 07/01/2014 01:22 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
On 07/01/2014 01:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
[snip]
Can you edit arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/cache.c and change the debug() to
printf() , then re-test please ? I suspe
On 07/01/2014 04:34 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
>
> On 07/01/2014 01:22 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
>>
>> On 07/01/2014 01:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> [snip]
> Can you edit arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/cache.c and change the debug() to
> printf() , then re-test please ? I suspect this might trap somethi
On 07/01/2014 01:22 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
On 07/01/2014 01:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
[snip]
Can you edit arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/cache.c and change the debug() to
printf() , then re-test please ? I suspect this might trap something
still. Ah, and please test on u-boot-usb/master with this pat
On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 at 05:16:26 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 09:13 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 at 05:03:17 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 06/30/2014 06:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> Instead of weird allocation of ci_drv->items_mem and then even weird
On 07/01/2014 09:13 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 at 05:03:17 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/30/2014 06:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> Instead of weird allocation of ci_drv->items_mem and then even weirder
>>> distribution of offsets in this memory area into ci_drv->items ar
On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 at 05:03:17 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/30/2014 06:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Instead of weird allocation of ci_drv->items_mem and then even weirder
> > distribution of offsets in this memory area into ci_drv->items array,
> > just allocate ci_drv->items as a big
On 06/30/2014 06:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Instead of weird allocation of ci_drv->items_mem and then even weirder
> distribution of offsets in this memory area into ci_drv->items array,
> just allocate ci_drv->items as a big slab of aligned memory (replaces
> ci_drv->items_mem) and let ci_get_qtd
On 07/01/2014 01:35 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 at 01:22:41 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
On 07/01/2014 01:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
[snip]
Can you edit arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/cache.c and change the debug() to
printf() , then re-test please ? I suspect this might trap something
On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 at 01:22:41 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 01:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >>> Can you edit arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/cache.c and change the debug() to
> >>> printf() , then re-test please ? I suspect this might trap something
> >>> still. Ah, and pleas
On 07/01/2014 01:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
[snip]
Can you edit arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/cache.c and change the debug() to
printf() , then re-test please ? I suspect this might trap something
still. Ah, and please test on u-boot-usb/master with this patch.
No additional output on the console.
Wh
On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 at 01:03:25 PM, Jörg Krause wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 12:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 at 08:51:45 AM, Jörg Krause wrote:
> >> On 07/01/2014 02:04 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> Instead of weird allocation of ci_drv->items_mem and then even weirder
> >
On 07/01/2014 12:17 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 at 08:51:45 AM, Jörg Krause wrote:
On 07/01/2014 02:04 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Instead of weird allocation of ci_drv->items_mem and then even weirder
distribution of offsets in this memory area into ci_drv->items array,
just a
On Tuesday, July 01, 2014 at 08:51:45 AM, Jörg Krause wrote:
> On 07/01/2014 02:04 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Instead of weird allocation of ci_drv->items_mem and then even weirder
> > distribution of offsets in this memory area into ci_drv->items array,
> > just allocate ci_drv->items as a big sla
On 07/01/2014 02:04 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Instead of weird allocation of ci_drv->items_mem and then even weirder
distribution of offsets in this memory area into ci_drv->items array,
just allocate ci_drv->items as a big slab of aligned memory (replaces
ci_drv->items_mem) and let ci_get_qtd() do
Instead of weird allocation of ci_drv->items_mem and then even weirder
distribution of offsets in this memory area into ci_drv->items array,
just allocate ci_drv->items as a big slab of aligned memory (replaces
ci_drv->items_mem) and let ci_get_qtd() do the distribution of offsets
in this memory ar
18 matches
Mail list logo
