On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 09:12 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:44:15AM +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 17:21 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:06:51PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:44:15AM +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 17:21 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:06:51PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, T
On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 17:21 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:06:51PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +, Joakim Tjer
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:06:51PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rin
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +, Joakim Tjernlu
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 07:47 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +, Joakim Tje
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:55:58AM +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +, Jo
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 17:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vas
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 03:56:09PM +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 11:17 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 23
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 08:57 +, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
Dear Andy,
In message
you wrote:
>
> At the very least, I would want the fix in
> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/u-boot.lds. :)
Well, I observed the problems on MPC5200 ...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Offi
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Andy,
>
> In message
> you
> wrote:
>>
>> > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which
>> > approach we should take?
> ...
>> Was there a resolution to this thread?
>
> No, there was no real resolution.
>
> My und
Dear Andy,
In message
you
wrote:
>
> > Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which
> > approach we should take?
...
> Was there a resolution to this thread?
No, there was no real resolution.
My understanding was that there was an (unwritten) agreement that we
should avoid
On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:35 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
> > >
> > > In message c1257d7a.0024d...@transmode.se> you wrote:
> > >
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 08:24:10 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
Hi!
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
> >
> > In message you wrote:
> >> Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> >> > In my original mail I referenced this po
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
>
> In message
> you
> wrote:
>>
>> Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it
>> > worked for me:
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/
On 23 Oct 2014, w...@denx.de wrote:
> Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which
> approach we should take?
>
> Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are
> doing [1] ?
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272
My understanding is this is for a co
Hello Wolfgang,
2014-10-23 15:10 GMT+02:00 Wolfgang Denk :
> Given that GCC 4.9.1 apparently solves this issue I wonder which
> approach we should take?
>
> Should we blacklist GCC 4.8.x (and 4.9.0) like the kernel folks are
> doing [1] ?
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/10/272
question is:
Dear Joakim, dear Dirk,
In message
you
wrote:
>
> Ouch, that was a nasty surprise.
Indeed.
> > In my original mail I referenced this potential solution, at least it
> > worked for me:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-02/msg00054.html
>
> That looks like the correct fix but I presume
>
> Hello Wolfgang,
>
> 2014-10-22 18:56 GMT+02:00 Wolfgang Denk :
> > Dear Dirk,
> >
> > In message
you
wrote:
> >> I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
> >> this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
> >
> > Thanks a lot for this poi
Hello Wolfgang,
2014-10-22 18:56 GMT+02:00 Wolfgang Denk :
> Dear Dirk,
>
> In message
> you
> wrote:
>> I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
>> this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
>
> Thanks a lot for this pointer.
I am really
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:57:39 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2014-10-22 23:46:45, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:27:42 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > > In message >
> > tscapi7wvxq...@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > > > > > I had exactl
On Wed 2014-10-22 23:46:45, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:27:42 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > In message tscapi7wvxq...@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> > > > > I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
> > > >
> > > > > this (and
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 11:27:42 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > In message you wrote:
> > > > I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
> > >
> > > > this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
> > > Thanks a lot for this poin
Hi!
> > In message
> > you
> > wrote:
> > > I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
> > > this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
> >
> > Thanks a lot for this pointer.
> >
> > > So there a three things to notice:
> > > 1. Do not use
Dear Tom,
In message <20141022172811.GD25506@bill-the-cat> you wrote:
>
> Is this ARM or PowerPC? The kernel has blacklisted 4.8.x for ARM in
> some cases, and this may or may not be related (see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D58854)
This is on PowerPC (MPC5200, i. e. the TQM5
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 06:56:11PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Dirk,
>
> In message
> you
> wrote:
> > I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
> > this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
>
> Thanks a lot for this pointer.
>
> >
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> So there a three things to notice:
>> 1. Do not use gcc 4.8 and u-boot at the moment.
>> 2. You might not notice that you have a problem until you erase u-boot
>> from flash (and get your cache flushed).
>> 3. Handling relro properly should
Dear Dirk,
In message
you wrote:
> I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
> this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
Thanks a lot for this pointer.
> So there a three things to notice:
> 1. Do not use gcc 4.8 and u-boot at the moment.
I had exactly the same behaviour some time ago and tracked it down to
this (and posted it on the mailing list, but sadly got no feedback):
In my latest u-boot builds I had some strange behaviour that I finally
tracked down to not fixed up flash addresses in relocated u-boot.
These addresses come f
Hi,
I'm trying to track down a "syntax error" issue that gets triggered
when erasing the U-Boot image in NOR flash. Symptoms look like this:
=> print update
update=protect off 0xfc00 +${filesize};erase 0xfc00
+${filesize};cp.b 20 0xfc00 ${filesize};protect on 0xf
32 matches
Mail list logo
