Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 3/7 v6] ARM: Add arm1176 core with S3C6400 SoC

2008-08-09 Thread Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
+ +void dcache_disable (void) +{ + ulong reg; + + reg = read_p15_c1 (); + cp_delay (); + reg = ~C1_DC; + write_p15_c1 (reg); why not as the other implementation? + write_p15_c1 (reg ~C1_DC); +} + +int dcache_status (void) +{ + return (read_p15_c1 ()

Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 5/7 v6] serial: add S3C64XX serial driver

2008-08-09 Thread Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
+ u32 reg; + u32 pclk_ratio = get_PCLK() / gd-baudrate; + int i; + IMHO it's still obscur + /* PCLK / (16 * baudrate) - 1 */ + reg = pclk_ratio / 16 - 1; + /* i = pclk_ratio % 16 */ + i = pclk_ratio - (reg + 1) * 16; + + uart-UBRDIV = reg; +

Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 7/7 v6] ARM: Add support for S3C6400 based SMDK6400 board

2008-08-09 Thread Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
On 21:42 Wed 06 Aug , Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: SMDK6400 can only boot U-Boot from NAND-flash. This patch adds a nand_spl driver for it too. The board can also boot from the NOR flash, but due to hardware limitations it can only address 64KiB on it, which is not enough for U-Boot. Based

Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] FIT: Fix handling of images without ramdisks

2008-08-09 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Peter Tyser, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: boot_get_ramdisk() should not treat the case when a FIT image does not contain a ramdisk as an error. Signed-off-by: Peter Tyser [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The original code would not allow booting of a FIT image which didn't contain

Re: [U-Boot-Users] [GIT PULL] Please pull mpc512x tree

2008-08-09 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear John Rigby, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: The following changes since commit 81091f58f0c58ecd26c5b05de2ae20ca6cdb521c: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD (1): drivers/serial: Move conditional compilation to Makefile for CONFIG_* macros are available in the git

Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Allow console input to be disabled

2008-08-09 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jerry Van Baren, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: For what it is worth, I'm with Haavard - it seems useful. WRT the dangerous part - it's intended use is for debug, so presumably it will It may be intended for debug, but it's available there without warning for the end user.

Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Report back the location we put the device tree if we dont boot

2008-08-09 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Kumar Gala, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Its useful to know where the device tree is if we have set 'autostart' to 'no. We come back to the prompt after a boot command and we can than post process the device tree but we need to know where it was put report this back via the