On 09/01/2015 03:33 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 at 09:38:23 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> On Tue 2015-09-01 00:23:49, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 09:57:05 PM, dingu...@opensource.altera.com > wrote: >>>> From: Dinh Nguyen <dingu...@opensource.altera.com> >>>> >>>> Add support for the Terasic DE0-Nano/Atlas-SoC Kit, which is a CycloneV >>>> based board. The board can boot from SD/MMC. Ethernet is a bit >>>> different because it has a KSZ9031 PHY, so for now, ethernet doesn't >>>> quite work yet, as a few patches are needed to support the PHY. >>> >>> I thought we did support the KSZ9031 PHY. What's the problem ? >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dinh Nguyen <dingu...@opensource.altera.com> >>>> --- >>>> Hi Marek, >>>> >>>> This patch is based on your u-boot-socfpga/wip/boards branch. >>> >>> OK, that makes sense. >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Dinh >>>> --- >>>> >>>> arch/arm/dts/Makefile | 1 + >>>> arch/arm/dts/socfpga_cyclone5_de0_sockit.dts | 61 +++ >>>> arch/arm/mach-socfpga/Kconfig | 7 + >>>> board/terasic/de0/MAINTAINERS | 5 + >>>> board/terasic/de0/Makefile | 9 + >>> >>> I think it might be clearer to rename it to de0-nano-soc, what do you >>> think ? What's the difference between de0-nano-soc and atlas btw ? >> >> Unless they are going to make "de0-mega".. I'd say "de0" is clean >> enough. > > They already make de0-cv , which is cycloneV SoC based, so de0 is not clear > enough, no way. They also make de0-nano , which is cycloneIV based (without > soc). >
After looking around the site a bit more, I think "de0_nano_sockit" is more appropriate? Dinh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot