> It looks okay, but I haven't had a chance to review it thoroughly.
>
> I don't like the value of "2" for "ignore". Since that type is an
'int',
> how
> about using "-1" instead?
No problem. If there's nothing else, I'll repost the patch with this
change (hopefully the last time).
I also imple
> To get this board working with the current git tree you'll need both
> patches plus the patch of include/asm-m68k/io.h by TsiChung Liew (see
> his patch "ColdFire: Fix CFI Flash low level Read/Write macro" on Jan 15
> 2008).
I'm having trouble applying the patch mentioned above (I've never used
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
[snip]
>> I'm not sure what happens (how git handles it) if patches are applied in
>> different orders. What I'm thinking about is if custodians #1 and #2
>
> git has no notation of order or sequence. It is storing content only.
I am having trouble compiling a build for u-boot 1.1.6. I have a microblaze
processor. I know that I am just missing a step but I am new to using u-boot
and need some help.
I have done a "make suzaku_config"
When I compile the code I get the error "#error Unknown CPU type".
What parameter do I
dear ,all
I have a board use S3C2442B43 (400MHz, 64MB mSDRAM, 128MB Nand),and there is no
flash or other memory,so have to use the nand boot,is there someone have done
something for this ,please give me some advices,thanks.
_
天凉了，
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> 1) Master branch is for others to actively base from
others = mostly users aka non-developers
> 2) Master branch is updated just before a pull request
not necessarily only then, but updates should contain code that is
considered to be "good" from the
Freunde-Anfrage von Veronica Hurson
http://images.hi5.com/images/email/notice2_02.jpg";>
http://images.hi5.com/images/email/notice2_01.jpg"; width="600" height="9"
alt="">
hi5 Freunde-Anfrage von Veronica
Hurson
Hallo h,
Ich möchte, dass du an meinem hi5 Freunde
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Not doing this makes it hard to use git-request-pull to generate these
>> cute summaries in case you repeatedly update->merge-a-patch.
>
> You're suppoed to merge it only when you're done with it - see my
> previous message: consi
On Jan 22, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008 3:31 AM, Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>
>>> In message >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
I was hoping to get some feed back on this patch that will add
sup
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 02:47:48PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> I agree that this may make sense on ARM systems - to me it would also
> make sense to pass the MAC address as an ATAG. The problem is that
> you will probably run into problems if youy try pushing such code
> into the mainline
On Jan 22, 2008 3:31 AM, Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> > In message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >> I was hoping to get some feed back on this patch that will add
> >> support for
> >> booting the multiprocessor 85xx chips. Th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> reading here:
>
>http://osdir.com/ml/boot-loaders.u-boot/2003-11/msg00074.html
Please read the COPYING file!
> I understand that is not required that standalone applications must be
> under GPL, but what happens if such applications call some u-
David Saada wrote:
> Any feedback on this patch? Timur?
It looks okay, but I haven't had a chance to review it thoroughly.
I don't like the value of "2" for "ignore". Since that type is an 'int', how
about using "-1" instead?
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:34:49 +0100
Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> you wrote:
> >
> > Other people (Linus, for example) do not. I guess I'll just have to
> > use different workflows for my u-boot and Linux work then...but I'm
> > not quite done arguing y
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> För Wolfgang Denk
> Skickat: den 22 januari 2008 17:35
> Till: Haavard Skinnemoen
> Kopia: U-Boot Users
> Ämne: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Revised custodian git writeup
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
Any feedback on this patch? Timur?
Regards,
David.
> -Original Message-
> From: David Saada
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:37 AM
> To: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Cc: 'Timur Tabi'
> Subject: [PATCH v3] QE IO: Add initial data to pin configuration +
> read/write functions
>
>
I have an ARM922T with u-boot 1.2.0
I created 1 image with mkimage. This image contains my kernel (zImage) and my
ramdisk.
mkimage -A arm -o linux -T multi -C none -a 0x8000 -e 0x8000 -n
"Kernel-Ramdisk-Image" -d zImage:ramdisk.gz mImage
1) Flash mImage with uboot
The kernel works nice.
2) Now I
Hello,
reading here:
http://osdir.com/ml/boot-loaders.u-boot/2003-11/msg00074.html
I understand that is not required that standalone applications must be
under GPL, but what happens if such applications call some u-boot's
functions like printf(), for instance?
I suppose that a non-GPLed appl
On 08:23 Sat 19 Jan , Ranjit Deshpande wrote:
> Jean-Christophe,
>
> 1. Do you want the patch against the Xscale custodian tree or the mainline ?
ixp custodian tree, please
> 2. Do you want me to create a separate directory under board/ ?
yes
Best Regards,
J.
On Jan 22, 2008, at 10:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm quite new to Open firmware, and I apologize if my question sound
> silly or has been already answered.
>
> My system is PowerPC-based (8641D) and has a 2-level PCI tree with a
> PCI-express switch in the middle, thus
> with
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Not doing this makes it hard to use git-request-pull to generate these
> cute summaries in case you repeatedly update->merge-a-patch.
You're suppoed to merge it only when you're done with it - see my
previous message: consider merging into your master
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Other people (Linus, for example) do not. I guess I'll just have to use
> different workflows for my u-boot and Linux work then...but I'm not
> quite done arguing yet ;-)
I appreciate your comments, really. I don't claim to be perfect, on
contrary -
Hi,
I'm quite new to Open firmware, and I apologize if my question sound silly
or has been already answered.
My system is PowerPC-based (8641D) and has a 2-level PCI tree with a
PCI-express switch in the middle, thus
with many subordinate busses.
Being it an embedded system, I was trying to writ
> I know that u-boot provides commands to access memory but I have seen that in
> some cases it also properly set-up board specific HW resources included
> flash, SDRAM etc (I think but not really sure because i'm a newbe on this
> subject, that some of these initialization could be provided by
Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Sunday 13 January 2008, Larry Johnson wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Larry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Acked-by: Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Wolfgang, will you pull this patch directly?
>
> Best regards,
> Stefan
>
> ==
Thank you for the replay.
I know that u-boot provides commands to access memory but I have seen that in
some cases it also properly set-up board specific HW resources included flash,
SDRAM etc (I think but not really sure because i'm a newbe on this subject,
that some of these initialization co
On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> I think you'll receive more well-tested code if you allow custodians to
> commit patches to "master" earlier. But this necessarily means either
> being allowed to rebase the "master" branch or using a different branch
> for merging (which only
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:03:45 +0100
Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As explained before, my idea is that the custodians will merge their
> code into the master branch (a) for others to test it and (b) for me
> to pull from.
And as I've tried to explain, I think those two purposes are
Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>> I've rewritten the "Tips for maintaining custodian trees" section to
>>> reflect Wolfgang's request that the "master" branch be used for patches
>>> for him to pull.
>>>
>>> Conceptually, t
Dear Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> I think the difference with our use vs. the general case that the
>> warning applies to is that the custodians are making their "master"
>> branch conform exactly to the u-boot.git master br
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:45:48 +0100
Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >
> > > Are you sure that is a good idea? Note that I (and probably others)
> > > will be pulling from that branch, and not only once!
> >
> > That depends on whether or not y
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> I'm sure that is how Wolfgang pulls subrepos to - not directly, but into
> a testing branch and then, if it is OK, into the main u-boot.git repo.
Not exactly - insteadof or ratherin addition to brnaches I also use
several copies of repositories which
Marco,
U-Boot provides generic commands to read/write memory locations (md/mw
respectively) no matter where they physically are. Once your memory
controller is set up properly (chip select timing etc.) you can easily
access the SRAM from U-Boot shell.
HTH,
llandre
DAVE Electronics System Hous
Dear Jerry,
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> The conflicting requirements are:
> 1) Wolfgang wishes to pull from the subrepo "master" branch
...and others will do that, too, at unknown points of time.
> 2) Subrepository custodians must rebase to pull the latest changes and
> fix an
Hi all,
we are developing a product based on AT91SAM9261 and equipped with u-boot v
1.1.5 and linux kernel v 2.6.22.1.
Since our HW architecture foresee a SRAM (1Mx16 and 55 ns of speed time) like
the Cypress62167DV3011-55 we need to know if u-boot has the support for it.
Thanks a lot in anticipa
Signed-off-by: Larry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
cpu/ppc4xx/denali_spd_ddr2.c |6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpu/ppc4xx/denali_spd_ddr2.c b/cpu/ppc4xx/denali_spd_ddr2.c
index 825bc21..60f89c9 100644
--- a/cpu/ppc4xx/denali_spd_ddr2.c
+++ b/cpu/ppc
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Is there somewhere a list of the toolchains that the code has to compile
> against, including pointers on where to obtain them?
If you use ELDK 3.1.1 and ELDK 4. you will be able to cover
ARM, MIPS and PowerPC; this should bring up most of the
Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:55:33 +0100
> Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Rebasing the master branch, i. e. the one I'll be pullung from?
>>
>> Are you sure that is a good idea? Note that I (and probably others)
>> will be pulling from that branch, and not only
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> fw_getenv works fine for userspace programs. But I find it quite usefull
> to forward U-Boot configuration parameters to Linux kernel space via
> ATAGs, especially regarding different hardware versions and vice versa.
> Accessing the data which has bee
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > Are you sure that is a good idea? Note that I (and probably others)
> > will be pulling from that branch, and not only once!
>
> That depends on whether or not you want your commit history filled with
> "merge with upstream/master" crap or not.
...w
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> I've rewritten the "Tips for maintaining custodian trees" section to
>> reflect Wolfgang's request that the "master" branch be used for patches
>> for him to pull.
>>
>> Conceptually, this is very different from my pr
Wolfgang
> For example, is above intended to mean "I ack your patch." or shall it
> mean: "Please ack your patch!"
Sorry.
I meant
" I see you have posted a patch and will add it to my list of patches to
consider"
I assume "I ack your patch" is what I should have sent.
>
> For example, I di
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:30:07 +0100
Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:32:53AM +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > Hey, is that the thanks I get for actually commenting at your mmc
> > driver? I don't recall rejecting anything, nor do I have the power to
> > do s
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:32:53AM +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > 2) I have submitted two rounds of our patches (with about one year in
> >between those two instances), and I have the feeling that the
> >interest in even commenting to those patches was quite low. This is
> >not
Dear Wolfgang,
thanks for your prompt feedback.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:18:39AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >
> > 2) I have submitted two rounds of our patches (with about one year in
> >between those two instances), and I have the feeling that the
> >interest in even commenting to
Hello!
Gregoire Banderet schrieb:
> Waht's the best way to get the U-Boot version string (the one returned
> by U-Boot cmd "version") from userspace?
> Arg passed to the kernel?
> U-Boot env variables and use fw_getenv?
fw_getenv works fine for userspace programs. But I find it quite usefull
to
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:55:33 +0100
Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rebasing the master branch, i. e. the one I'll be pullung from?
>
> Are you sure that is a good idea? Note that I (and probably others)
> will be pulling from that branch, and not only once!
That depends on whether or
Dear Peter,
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Ack your patch
I have serious problems in interpreting your terse postings.
For example, is above intended to mean "I ack your patch." or shall it
mean: "Please ack your patch!"
I've asked similar questions before, but you did not reply.
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:36:13 +0100
Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) I have submitted two rounds of our patches (with about one year in
>between those two instances), and I have the feeling that the
>interest in even commenting to those patches was quite low. This is
>not v
On Jan 22, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> I was hoping to get some feed back on this patch that will add
>> support for
>> booting the multiprocessor 85xx chips. The boot mechanism is based
>> on the
>> forth coming ePAPR spec (based on
Dear Harald,
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> 2) I have submitted two rounds of our patches (with about one year in
>between those two instances), and I have the feeling that the
>interest in even commenting to those patches was quite low. This is
>not very encouraging f
Ack your patch
Peter
--
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any
other person, use it for any purpose, or st
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> >Furthermore, I have zero clue if there still is any living person
> >out there who is trying to run u-boot on a s3c2400, and we
>
> The trab board (with a S3C2400 CPU) is still in production. But there
> we use an old U-Boot version (1.1.4) a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I was hoping to get some feed back on this patch that will add support for
> booting the multiprocessor 85xx chips. The boot mechanism is based on the
> forth coming ePAPR spec (based on how device tree, linux
> booting-without-of spec).
>
> The biggest
Hello,
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> I've rewritten the "Tips for maintaining custodian trees" section to
> reflect Wolfgang's request that the "master" branch be used for patches
> for him to pull.
>
> Conceptually, this is very different from my previous recommendation /
> m
Hi Harald,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on :
> > The result is a fork. IIRC, there has been talk about unforking
> > openmoko, but that has not happened yet.
>
> I'd be very happy to do so. However, there are several reasons why
> this is extremely difficult
>
> 1) the s3c24xx chipset family suppo
I was hoping to get some feed back on this patch that will add support for
booting the multiprocessor 85xx chips. The boot mechanism is based on the
forth coming ePAPR spec (based on how device tree, linux
booting-without-of spec).
The biggest feedback I'm hoping for is related to the command set
57 matches
Mail list logo
