Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] uboot and ZFS

2012-05-13 Thread Jorgen Lundman
I suppose the question would be how big the code change is versus how many people will actually benefit. If it result in a 'big' increase in .text or .data then it may need to be a compile time option (CONFIG_SYS_HUGE_EXT4 or something) I was guess that the issue lies in that the sector off

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] uboot and ZFS

2012-05-13 Thread Graeme Russ
Hi Jorgen Lundman, On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jorgen Lundman wrote: >> >> Yay, so the ext4 works for you? Why wasn't ext4 merged? Can you post the >> reasoning (maybe links to gmane or something?) >> > > I have no idea. I just needed ext4 support, and saw someone had done the > hard work b

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] uboot and ZFS

2012-05-13 Thread Jorgen Lundman
Yay, so the ext4 works for you? Why wasn't ext4 merged? Can you post the reasoning (maybe links to gmane or something?) I have no idea. I just needed ext4 support, and saw someone had done the hard work back in Dec. I took the patches and applied them. I have been informed that ext4 can't r

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] uboot and ZFS

2012-05-11 Thread Marek Vasut
Dear Jorgen Lundman, > > Technically, U-Boot is GPLv2+ so GPLv2 only code _may_ not be accepted > > That is for Wolfgang to decide, but you have been warned :) > > Naturally, he is king after all. There will be a thousand reasons to reject > it, but hopefully not due to license. I wonder ... Ger

[U-Boot] [PATCH] uboot and ZFS

2012-05-09 Thread Jorgen Lundman
Technically, U-Boot is GPLv2+ so GPLv2 only code _may_ not be accepted That is for Wolfgang to decide, but you have been warned :) Naturally, he is king after all. There will be a thousand reasons to reject it, but hopefully not due to license. I based my GITHUB after the CuBox fork of u-