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

Reply via email to