On 02/24/2016 04:30 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi York,
>
> On 24 February 2016 at 15:55, york sun wrote:
>> On 02/16/2016 08:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi York,
>>>
>>> On 12 February 2016 at 13:59, York Sun wrote:
FIT image supports more than 32 bits in addresses by using #address-cell
>
Hi York,
On 24 February 2016 at 15:55, york sun wrote:
> On 02/16/2016 08:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi York,
>>
>> On 12 February 2016 at 13:59, York Sun wrote:
>>> FIT image supports more than 32 bits in addresses by using #address-cell
>>> field. However the address length is not handled wh
On 02/16/2016 08:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi York,
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 13:59, York Sun wrote:
>> FIT image supports more than 32 bits in addresses by using #address-cell
>> field. However the address length is not handled when parsing FIT images.
>>
>
> nit: How about saying "fix this
Hi York,
On 12 February 2016 at 13:59, York Sun wrote:
> FIT image supports more than 32 bits in addresses by using #address-cell
> field. However the address length is not handled when parsing FIT images.
>
nit: How about saying "fix this by adding support for 64-bit
addresses" or similar
> Si
FIT image supports more than 32 bits in addresses by using #address-cell
field. However the address length is not handled when parsing FIT images.
Signed-off-by: York Sun
---
Changes in v4:
Separate ulong to phys_addr_t change to another patch.
Changes in v3:
Define PRIpa for host and targ
5 matches
Mail list logo
