On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
>> The 512K limit is arbitrary and can be changed. It exists just to
>> provide a stable start address on something that grows from the end of
>> flash.
>
> True, but we haven't actually done changed it. Instead of allowing f
Scott Wood wrote:
> The 512K limit is arbitrary and can be changed. It exists just to
> provide a stable start address on something that grows from the end of
> flash.
True, but we haven't actually done changed it. Instead of allowing for a
larger u-boot.bin, we have ALWAYS disabled features
On 09/20/2012 10:22:21 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
Gerlando Falauto wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> following up Timur's patch on QE microcode:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=132197537730440&w=2
>
> I was wondering, would it make any sense to *embed* QE's firmware
within
> u-boot image itself?
There ar
Gerlando Falauto wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> following up Timur's patch on QE microcode:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=132197537730440&w=2
>
> I was wondering, would it make any sense to *embed* QE's firmware within
> u-boot image itself?
There are three problems:
1) A lot of U-Boot images a
Dear Gerlando Falauto,
In message <505ae6c3.5080...@keymile.com> you wrote:
>
> following up Timur's patch on QE microcode:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=132197537730440&w=2
>
> I was wondering, would it make any sense to *embed* QE's firmware within
> u-boot image itself?
It's a matter of
Hi everyone,
following up Timur's patch on QE microcode:
http://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=132197537730440&w=2
I was wondering, would it make any sense to *embed* QE's firmware within
u-boot image itself?
After all, it should be some ~64KB worth of data, right?
Not quite sure whether this has ever
6 matches
Mail list logo
