Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Simon Glass wrote: > > I see that, although it is adding to the fpga header so presumably > > making it harder for someone to move this over. > > Yes, I'm not happy with changing the header and even xilinx C file to add > functionality for altera. However, this is due to the fact that a core file > still depends > on an dogs implementation, which I removed.
This should have meant "on an fpga implementation". No dogs or offences here. My mobile phone does not know the word "fpga", obviously. > > > Does anyone on cc know the plan fr conversion of FPGA to driver model? > > It does not look too tricky from a quick look at the header file. > > It does not look tricky, indeed. However, we should try to match this to the > Linux > implementation regarding what's needed in the device tree. And I just don't > know > that part, yet ;-) > Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
