On 28.11.2017 14:46, Michal Simek wrote: > On 28.11.2017 10:08, Goldschmidt Simon wrote: >> 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 ;-) > > I have not a problem to enable others fpgas to use this functionality. > And transition should be done for all these drivers when someone has a time > to do > it.
Great, thanks! So via which tree would this be included? Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot