VenkataKrishna wrote:
Dear Friends,
I want to ………
1. How to develop linux BSP to MPC8260.
The term "BSP" (Board Support Package) is not used much in linux-land.
By BSP you are probably referring to a boot program (bootrom) and a
linux configuration (kernel/drivers).
For a bootrom, I recom
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> +int px_gpio_xlate(struct of_gpio_chip *of_gc, struct device_node *np,
> + const void *gpio_spec)
> +{
> + if (gpio[1] & PX_GPIO_FLAG_ACTIVE_LOW)
> + px_gc->active_low |= pin2mask(*gpio);
You have a race here. What if px_
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Victor Gallardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From what I can tell, you don't even need this patch or the defconfig.
> > Nothing differs at this point from Glacier other than the DTS. Since
> > U-Boot is your loader, it should be able to pass the diffe
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:14:53 -0300
Luis Machado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Follows a re-worked patch that unifies the handling of hardware
> watchpoint structures for DABR-based and DAC-based processors.
>
> The flow is exactly the same for DABR-based processors.
>
> As for the DAC-based cod
Dear Friends,
I want to ...
1. How to develop linux BSP to MPC8260.
2. where can I start to develop linux BSP.
3. what are tools available in market to develop linux BSP.
Plz suggest me about this one.
Thanks Regards
Venkatakrishna Pari
__
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 23:55 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 18 July 2008, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
> >
> > I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
> > discussions over beer.
> >
> > So if your head
On Saturday 19 July 2008, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
>
> > Ok, this is the previous version of the patch from Mark, which
> > does exactly that. Please use this one instead.
>
> So, should we add a:
>
> From: Mark Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Yes, of course. I keep losing this line when sending patche
> Ok, this is the previous version of the patch from Mark, which
> does exactly that. Please use this one instead.
So, should we add a:
From: Mark Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
?
Jeremy
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlab
Hi,
On Saturday 19 July 2008 00:14:35 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 20:43 +0200, Marvin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > while trying to cleanup some configs/makefiles for ppc64 I noticed, that
> > CONFIG_POWER4 implies CONFIG_PPC64 and vice versa in all defconfigs.
> > So I want to
