+++ Øyvind Harboe [2011-03-22 09:23 +0100]:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Øyvind Harboe
> > wrote:
> > > cortex a8 and a9 are very similar, so they should be merged and
> > > conditional code used + configuration options.
> > >
> >
On Tuesday 22 March 2011 01:08:03 Aaron Carroll wrote:
> On 22 March 2011 01:53, luca ellero wrote:
> > Unfortunately at the moment I have no cortex A8 boards to test it.
> > Anyway I wonder where 0x8000 come from, since I can't find any docs
> > in
>
> This came from poking the omap4430. Th
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Tomek CEDRO wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Øyvind Harboe
> wrote:
> > cortex a8 and a9 are very similar, so they should be merged and
> > conditional code used + configuration options.
> >
> > cortex m3 is more mature(hence breakage is more of an iss
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> cortex a8 and a9 are very similar, so they should be merged and
> conditional code used + configuration options.
>
> cortex m3 is more mature(hence breakage is more of an issue) and
> much more different so merging *all* cortex code is furthe
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> Hello world :-)
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Øyvind Harboe
> wrote:
>> In terms of maintenance we can't really support
>> two files that are so similar, so unless I hear major
>> objections, I'd rather go with this patch and sort
>>
On 22 March 2011 01:53, luca ellero wrote:
> Unfortunately at the moment I have no cortex A8 boards to test it.
> Anyway I wonder where 0x8000 come from, since I can't find any docs in
This came from poking the omap4430. The ROM (on the two rev's I
tested, anyway) is bogus, so I don't think
Hello world :-)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> In terms of maintenance we can't really support
> two files that are so similar, so unless I hear major
> objections, I'd rather go with this patch and sort
> out any regressions afterwards.
Maybe those two files are similar
In terms of maintenance we can't really support
two files that are so similar, so unless I hear major
objections, I'd rather go with this patch and sort
out any regressions afterwards.
Previously the debug base was hardcoded, then logic
was added to autodetect it. The autodetection would
have been
On 21/03/2011 14.20, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
I didn't do anything clever here.
Reading the cortex_a9/a8.c logs it looked like Cortex A8 had simply
been abandoned, so I copied cortex_a9.c onto cortex_a8.c, did a quick
search and replace job and deleted cortex_a9.c.
Any objections?
Insights?
Does
I didn't do anything clever here.
Reading the cortex_a9/a8.c logs it looked like Cortex A8 had simply
been abandoned, so I copied cortex_a9.c onto cortex_a8.c, did a quick
search and replace job and deleted cortex_a9.c.
Any objections?
Insights?
Does this look OK?
Are all the changes that went
10 matches
Mail list logo
