On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 8 January 2014 18:39, M P wrote:
>> I will re-add the trace for both write and read and see if I can narrow the
>> range down; it will be linux specific, tho, that's why I thought a
>> 'catchall' block was more appropriate.
I would sugges
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Michel Pollet wrote:
> This implements just enough of the digctl IO block to allow
> linux to believe it's running on (currently only) an imx23.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michel Pollet
> ---
> hw/arm/Makefile.objs | 1 +
> hw/arm/imx23_digctl.c | 110
>
On 8 January 2014 18:39, M P wrote:
> I will re-add the trace for both write and read and see if I can narrow the
> range down; it will be linux specific, tho, that's why I thought a
> 'catchall' block was more appropriate.
Well, we should be implementing what the hardware does,
generally. Misimp
On 6 January 2014 15:46, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 11 December 2013 13:56, Michel Pollet wrote:
>
> This implements just enough of the digctl IO block to allow
> > linux to believe it's running on (currently only) an imx23.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michel Pollet
> > ---
> > hw/arm/Makefile.objs
On 11 December 2013 13:56, Michel Pollet wrote:
> This implements just enough of the digctl IO block to allow
> linux to believe it's running on (currently only) an imx23.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michel Pollet
> ---
> hw/arm/Makefile.objs | 1 +
> hw/arm/imx23_digctl.c | 110
> +++
