On May 4, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2011 12:34:20 -0500
Kumar Gala ga...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On May 4, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Haiying Wang wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 22:53 +0530, Poonam Aggrwal wrote:
+sinclude $(obj).depend
+
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message 2cf0740e-8067-456c-b3aa-1d8ce3a76...@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:
This loop is similar to what nand_spl/nand_boot.c is using. It's ugly, but
the goal here is small code rather than cleanliness. Is the timebase
running at this point? How much code is
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 22:53 +0530, Poonam Aggrwal wrote:
+sinclude $(obj).depend
+
+#
diff --git a/nand_spl/board/freescale/p1010rdb/nand_boot.c
b/nand_spl/board/freescale/p1010rdb/nand_boot.c
new file mode 100644
On May 4, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Haiying Wang wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 22:53 +0530, Poonam Aggrwal wrote:
+sinclude $(obj).depend
+
+#
diff --git a/nand_spl/board/freescale/p1010rdb/nand_boot.c
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 12:34 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
+
+#define udelay(x) {int i, j; for (i = 0; i x; i++) for (j = 0; j
1; j++); }
There were many comments on this udelay before, we should not use this
define, but use the udelay() which u-boot provides.
Is there a udelay
On Wed, 4 May 2011 12:34:20 -0500
Kumar Gala ga...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On May 4, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Haiying Wang wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 22:53 +0530, Poonam Aggrwal wrote:
+sinclude $(obj).depend
+
+#
+
+#define udelay(x) {int i, j; for (i = 0; i x; i++) for (j = 0; j
1; j++); }
There were many comments on this udelay before, we should not use this
define, but use the udelay() which u-boot provides.
Is there a udelay that is defined for the nand_spl build? The problem is
On Wed, 4 May 2011 14:15:58 -0500
Andy Fleming aflem...@gmail.com wrote:
+
+#define udelay(x) {int i, j; for (i = 0; i x; i++) for (j = 0; j
1; j++); }
There were many comments on this udelay before, we should not use this
define, but use the udelay() which u-boot provides.
8 matches
Mail list logo
