In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > So is there an easy way to fix these boards?
>
> Enable CFG_NAND_LEGACY and CONFIG_CMD_NAND, include whatever header that
> the NAND macros depend on, fix any other build breaks, and test the
> result. I don't have the hardware to do that last step,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 04:37:35PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > This board seems to be using the legacy NAND interface, but doesn't
> > define CFG_NAND_LEGACY. It also doesn't define CONFIG_CMD_NAND; if one
> > does so, then it gets build errors (with
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > - at91rm9200dk:
> > In file included from /home/wd/git/u-boot/work/include/nand.h:32,
> > from board.c:48:
> > /home/wd/git/u-boot/work/include/linux/mtd/nand.h:82:1: warning:
> > "NAND_CTL_SETCLE" redefined
> > In fi
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:18:31PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> - at91rm9200dk:
> In file included from /home/wd/git/u-boot/work/include/nand.h:32,
>from board.c:48:
> /home/wd/git/u-boot/work/include/linux/mtd/nand.h:82:1: warning:
> "NAND_CTL_SETCLE" redefine
Hello Jerry,
Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> Jerry Van Baren wrote:
>> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
Didnt know this ... so we must change something in common/main.c :-(
>>> Yes.
>>>
Whats with something like this?
>>> Looks way too complicated to me. What d
Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>> Didnt know this ... so we must change something in common/main.c :-(
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Whats with something like this?
>> Looks way too complicated to me. What do you think about the PATCH /
>> RFC I posted
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Didnt know this ... so we must change something in common/main.c :-(
>
> Yes.
>
>> Whats with something like this?
>
> Looks way too complicated to me. What do you think about the PATCH /
> RFC I posted yesterday?
>
> Best rega
Hello Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Whats with something like this?
>
> Looks way too complicated to me. What do you think about the PATCH /
> RFC I posted yesterday?
Why complicated? I think (means that I must verify it) the compiler
shouldnt gene
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Didnt know this ... so we must change something in common/main.c :-(
Yes.
> Whats with something like this?
Looks way too complicated to me. What do you think about the PATCH /
RFC I posted yesterday?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software
Hello Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Heiko,
>
> in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/configs/sc3.h b/include/configs/sc3.h
>> index f6e40de..0ff889a 100644
>> --- a/include/configs/sc3.h
>> +++ b/include/configs/sc3.h
>> @@ -132,7 +132,8 @@
>>
>> #if 1 /*
Dear Heiko,
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> diff --git a/include/configs/sc3.h b/include/configs/sc3.h
> index f6e40de..0ff889a 100644
> --- a/include/configs/sc3.h
> +++ b/include/configs/sc3.h
> @@ -132,7 +132,8 @@
>
> #if 1/* feel free to disable for development */
>
Hello Wolfgang,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> - sc3:
> main.c: In function 'abortboot':
> main.c:119: warning: too many arguments for format
[PATCH] sc3: Fix compilerwarning:
main.c:119: warning: too many arguments for format
Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <[EMAIL PROTEC
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the first release candidate for v1.3.4 is out.
:-)
> Well, actually it's more some mile stone than a real release
> candidate as we still have a couple of issues that need to be
> fixed before we can consider a release:
:-(
> - sacsng:
> main.c:
Hello,
the first release candidate for v1.3.4 is out. Well, actually it's
more some mile stone than a real release candidate as we still have a
couple of issues that need to be fixed before we can consider a
release:
PPC:
- MPC8272ADS:
pci.c: In function 'ft_pci_setup':
14 matches
Mail list logo
