Richard,
Richard Stallman wrote:
> - automotive control units: Think about cars being on the highway with
> many fancy features built into their electronics (from their owners),
> which unfortunately are a security risk for the owner and others on the
> road.
>
> I don't think car
Thanks Jean...
Regards..
Prafulla . .
> -Original Message-
> From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD [mailto:plagn...@jcrosoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:30 AM
> To: Prafulla Wadaskar
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Manas Saksena; Ronen Shitrit;
> Nicolas Pitre; Ashish Karkare; Pra
> -Original Message-
> From: Dirk Behme [mailto:dirk.be...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:19 PM
> To: Shilimkar, Santosh
> Cc: Pandita, Vikram; Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD;
> Nishanth Menon; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Tom; Peter Pearse
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Uboot and
If I use a GPLv3 bootloader in a medical tool, a car, Point of payment
terminal,
Military System, etc... it is a grave security flaw.
I'm not sure that you will be very happy if someone can modify the Firmware
freely. As you may loose money to be killed and at the extrem kill milli
I would like to add that sometimes regulations EXPLICITELY require secure
boot. No product can be approved without it. And this does not have anything
to do with public's freedom. Just one example is gambling industry which I
happen to work right now.
Gambling machines for casinos
Dear Detlev Zundel,
2009/6/25 Detlev Zundel :
> If you have a proxy, try this beforehand:
>
> export http_proxy=http://:@:
It works! That's terrific!
Thank you. :-D
regards,
Po-Yu Chuang
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <
plagn...@jcrosoft.com> wrote:
> On 14:57 Mon 08 Jun , Grazvydas Ignotas wrote:
> > The update consists of following changes:
> > - remove configuration of not connected pins, effectively
> > leaving them in safe mode.
> > -
On Thursday 25 June 2009 19:29:26 Richard Stallman wrote:
> - automotive control units: Think about cars being on the highway with
> many fancy features built into their electronics (from their owners),
> which unfortunately are a security risk for the owner and others on the
> road
On Thursday 25 June 2009 19:29:47 Richard Stallman wrote:
> if the GNU project wants people to use the GPLv3 and people have
> a perception of it being crap, then it's their problem to address
> it.
>
> I don't think there is much danger of that. Many software packages
> use GPLv3 an
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:56:26 +0800
"wanjiutuan" wrote:
> In LTIB， first I executed such command “make MPC8313ERDB_NAND_33_config；
> make”，
>
> There are some link errors in nand_spl, such as “undefined reference
> restgprXXX”, but for u-boot ,there is no problems.
"but for u-boot"? you mean t
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:01:46 +0530
Rahanesh wrote:
> U-Boot 1.1.2 (Jun 10 2008 - 18:55:13)
ouch, that's /old/
>Verifying Checksum ... Bad Data CRC
> UBOOT>
u-boot's integrity check failed - might want to vary the load addresses
so loading one image doesn't overwrite another - the new image
if the GNU project wants people to use the GPLv3 and people have
a perception of it being crap, then it's their problem to address
it.
I don't think there is much danger of that. Many software packages
use GPLv3 and are appreciated by many users.
But there is a deeper point to make
- automotive control units: Think about cars being on the highway with
many fancy features built into their electronics (from their owners),
which unfortunately are a security risk for the owner and others on the
road.
I don't think cars depend on software for safety as such. If a
On 01:13 Sat 30 May , Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> This patch adds a SPI driver for the Marvell Kirkwood SoC's.
>
> Signed-off-by: Prafulla Wadaskar
> ---
> drivers/spi/Makefile|1 +
> drivers/spi/kirkwood_spi.c | 185
> +++
> incl
On 10:34 Thu 18 Jun , Michael Evans wrote:
>
> Description:
> The attached patch corrects an error in the examples/Makefile which causes
> the applications in the examples directory to hang on OMAP3 based boards.
> The current Makefile sets -Ttext during linking to 0x0c10 which is
> ou
On 10:18 Thu 25 Jun , Tom wrote:
> Nishanth Menon wrote:
> >Shilimkar, Santosh said the following on 06/25/2009 04:51 PM:
>
> >>
> >>So essentially u-boot would be almost same as Cortex-A8 except you should
> >>avoid programming AuxControl
> >>register because the bit definitions are differen
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
> k...@koi8.net a ?crit :
> > > > > I downloaded the one I suspect is the more relevant:
> > > > > http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14_tech_stnds.pdf
> > > > > And I cannot found "secure boot" into it.
> > > > Are you looking for a precise phra
On 19:21 Thu 25 Jun , Minkyu Kang wrote:
> Because of the reset_cpu is soc specific, should be move to soc
> And read reset value from SYS_ID register instead of hard code
> this patch also supports s3c6410
>
> Signed-off-by: Minkyu Kang
> ---
> cpu/arm1176/cpu.c| 16 --
On 14:57 Mon 08 Jun , Grazvydas Ignotas wrote:
> The update consists of following changes:
> - remove configuration of not connected pins, effectively
> leaving them in safe mode.
> - remove unused GPIOs, setup newly added ones.
> - setup pulls for various GPIOs. Disable pulls for game
> bu
k...@koi8.net a écrit :
I downloaded the one I suspect is the more relevant:
http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14_tech_stnds.pdf
And I cannot found "secure boot" into it.
>>> Are you looking for a precise phrase?
>> I want to look deeper into the subject. I think that if a regulatio
On 14:58 Fri 12 Jun , David Brownell wrote:
> Add support for csb337, an older at91rm9200 board. These boards
> originally shipped with MicroMonitor, not U-Boot. This config
> supports boot from Ethernet, and talks over I2C and console.
>
> Open issues:
> - Console refuses to start at 1152
On 11:18 Mon 22 Jun , Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> This patch-set cleans up some glitches in my first submission.
> I posted it as a single patch and a separate timer patch. The first one is
> split as JC asked, and the timer patch is there as well since it is
> conceptually in the same set, alth
On 20:59 Wed 24 Jun , Richard Stallman wrote:
> I can assure you that today If we switch the V2 to the v3 we will lose a
> lot of
> customers
>
> Are the users of U-Boot usually customers? That term normally refers
> to people that buy a commercial product or service.
This where I di
This email has violated the PROFANITY.
and Quarantine entire message has been taken on 6/26/2009 2:17:03 AM.
Message details:
Server: MAIL
Sender: k...@koi8.net;
Recipient:
j...@eclis.ch;m...@bubblegen.co.uk;u-boot@lists.denx.de;r...@gnu.org;scottw...@freescale.com;
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] U-book an
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
> k...@koi8.net a ?crit :
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
> >
> > > k...@koi8.net a ?crit :
> > > > > Please point out precisely the regulations that require secure
> boot.
> > > > > Should be
> > > > > trivial as regulat
This email has violated the PROFANITY.
and Quarantine entire message has been taken on 6/26/2009 1:51:37 AM.
Message details:
Server: MAIL
Sender: j...@eclis.ch;
Recipient:
k...@koi8.net;m...@bubblegen.co.uk;u-boot@lists.denx.de;r...@gnu.org;scottw...@freescale.com;
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] U-book an
k...@koi8.net a écrit :
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
>
>> k...@koi8.net a ?crit :
Please point out precisely the regulations that require secure boot.
Should be
trivial as regulations are by definition public.
>>> Do you happen to know what "Google" is?
>> Y
Hi all,
I would like to submit you a patch to add a preliminary support to EHCI USB
Freescale controller integrated on MPC5121.
There is still much job to do..for now, this patch add support for USB0 on UTMI
phy.
I've personally tested this feature with mass storage and it does work.
Could be a
This email has violated the PROFANITY.
and Quarantine entire message has been taken on 6/26/2009 1:09:47 AM.
Message details:
Server: MAIL
Sender: k...@koi8.net;
Recipient:
j...@eclis.ch;m...@bubblegen.co.uk;u-boot@lists.denx.de;r...@gnu.org;scottw...@freescale.com;
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] U-book an
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:30:29AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > You have a strange definition of freedom - for you it is limited to the
> > provider of the devices not to the users of the devices. I guess this
> > is what this all boils down to.
>
> No, it is "let the dev
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
> k...@koi8.net a ?crit :
> > > Please point out precisely the regulations that require secure boot.
> > > Should be
> > > trivial as regulations are by definition public.
> >
> > Do you happen to know what "Google" is?
>
> Yes, thanks :-)
>
>
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:48:12PM -0400, Chris Morgan wrote:
> These kind of snide comments don't address the point and it really
> bugs me, just like the typical political response of "if you don't
> like 'x' then move to another country".
Actually, it's more like repeatedly telling a telemarket
k...@koi8.net a écrit :
>> Please point out precisely the regulations that require secure boot.
>> Should be
>> trivial as regulations are by definition public.
>
> Do you happen to know what "Google" is?
Yes, thanks :-)
For example this document have the term "secure boot":
http://www.dcg.virgi
On Thursday 25 June 2009 14:46:10 Thomas Doerfler wrote:
> which operating systems, that get typically booted using U-Boot are
> already under GPL3?
>
> I know that the license of the Boot Loader has nothing to do with the
> license of the booted software, what is the "political benefit" to put
> t
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Thomas Doerfler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since this threads gets more and more interesting, just a question out
> of my curiosity:
>
> which operating systems, that get typically booted using U-Boot are
> already under GPL3?
>
> I know that the license of the Boot Loader has nothin
Hi,
since this threads gets more and more interesting, just a question out
of my curiosity:
which operating systems, that get typically booted using U-Boot are
already under GPL3?
I know that the license of the Boot Loader has nothing to do with the
license of the booted software, what is the "p
On Thursday 25 June 2009 10:41:13 Detlev Zundel wrote:
> >>> It is this "certification is only possible like we say" attitude which
> >>> I seriously question.
> >>
> >> whether you question this attitude doesnt matter. you arent a lawyer in
> >> general, you arent a lawyer for these companies, an
Peter Pearse said the following on 06/25/2009 06:55 PM:
> Those interested in SMP booting on ARM may be interested in
>
> http://www.linux-arm.org/LinuxBootLoader/SMPBoot
>
>
> On ARM supplied development boards we rely on the pre-installed
>
> ARM Boot Monitor to provide the necessary setup
> If this all fails and as you are way past U-Boot, change the mailing
> list to linuxppc-dev :)
Is this really "way past U-Boot"? I was under the impression that my
issue is at the hand-off point from U-Boot to the kernel and that the
kernel wasn't doing anything yet. Am I wrong?
___
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009 20:59:47 Richard Stallman wrote:
>> their response is simply "fine, we'll move on to the next=
>> =20
>> guy who will satisfy our requirements".
>>
>> When people offer to use my programs if I relax th
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
> k...@koi8.net a ?crit :
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday 24 June 2009 20:59:11 Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > > The principal purpose of these products is to restrict the
> public's
> > > > freedom. So it i
k...@koi8.net a écrit :
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 24 June 2009 20:59:11 Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> The principal purpose of these products is to restrict the public's
>>> freedom. So it is natural that their means involve restricting our
>>> freedom too.
>> i
Hi Mikhail,
> You're right, I turned on CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT in include/configs/EP88x.h.
Wow, you _are_ quick ;)
> Here's where I'm at now:
>
> U-Boot 2009.03-svn8591 (Jun 25 2009 - 10:18:12)
>
> CPU: MPC885ZPnn at 100 MHz [40.0...133.0 MHz]
>8 kB I-Cache 8 kB D-Cache FEC present
> Board:
Those interested in SMP booting on ARM may be interested in
http://www.linux-arm.org/LinuxBootLoader/SMPBoot
On ARM supplied development boards we rely on the pre-installed
ARM Boot Monitor to provide the necessary setup to allow U-Boot to run uni-core.
I am about to look at
Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Pandita, Vikram
>> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:32 PM
>> To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD; Nishanth Menon;
>> Shilimkar, Santosh
>> Cc: Sudeep K N; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Tom
>> Subject: RE: [U-Boot] Uboot and ARM SMP support
Hi Detlev,
> Please disable unneccessary debug output the next time - this makes it
> hard to see the salient things - thanks.
Done, next bunch of code will be posted w/o debug output (see code
below), I just thought it would help track down the issues.
>> => setenv ethaddr 00-e0-86-0c-84-fd
>>
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009 20:59:11 Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Embedded systems using core soc silicon from a number of
> manufacturers
> > have started to use what is known as 'secure boot'. This is
> typically
> > the case in applications whic
Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Shilimkar, Santosh said the following on 06/25/2009 04:51 PM:
>
>>
>> So essentially u-boot would be almost same as Cortex-A8 except you should
>> avoid programming AuxControl
>> register because the bit definitions are different.
>>
>> Hope this helps
>>
>>
> s
Hi Mike,
>>> It is this "certification is only possible like we say" attitude which I
>>> seriously question.
>>
>> whether you question this attitude doesnt matter. you arent a lawyer in
>> general, you arent a lawyer for these companies, and you arent indemnifying
>> them. their legal review
On Thursday 25 June 2009 10:20:47 Detlev Zundel wrote:
> >> It's not the first time I hear this mantra. Can you give me some facts
> >> to back this up?
> >
> > i dont know what kind of "facts" you're looking for. i didnt make this
> > scenario up, it was described to me by a customer in the US a
Hi Rhanesh,
>> I am also trying to load Linux from uboot. When i try to boot Linux
>> from uboot it stops at Verifying Checksum and stops there. What might be
>> the reasson for this?
>>
>> This is my output.
>>
>> U-Boot 1.1.2 (Jun 10 2008 - 18:55:13)
>>
>> Board: MIPS CPU Speed 200 MHz
>>
Hi Rahanesh,
Rahanesh wrote:
> Hello Mikhail Zaturenskiy,
>
> I am also trying to load Linux from uboot. When i try to boot Linux
> from uboot it stops at Verifying Checksum and stops there. What might be
> the reasson for this?
>
> This is my output.
>
> U-Boot 1.1.2 (Jun 10 2008 - 18:55:13
Hi Mike,
>> It is this "certification is only possible like we say" attitude which I
>> seriously question.
>
> whether you question this attitude doesnt matter. you arent a lawyer in
> general, you arent a lawyer for these companies, and you arent indemnifying
> them. their legal review says
Shilimkar, Santosh said the following on 06/25/2009 04:51 PM:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Pandita, Vikram
>> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:32 PM
>> To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD; Nishanth Menon;
>> Shilimkar, Santosh
>> Cc: Sudeep K N; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Tom
>> Subject: RE:
On Friday 19 June 2009 04:40:59 Detlev Zundel wrote:
> > I was asked about relicensing U-Boot as GPLv3:
> >
> > From:Richard Stallman
> > Subject: U-book and GPLv3?
> > To: Wolfgang Denk
> > Date:Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:17:28 -0400
> >
> >
> > I really enjoy the name U-boot.
> > What are
Hi Mike,
> you really should use the standard terms of the trade then, otherwise
> you will just keep confusing people.
I will not bother discussing this anymore with you but rather leave it
up to the reader to decide on who is confusing.
Cheers
Detlev
--
"Win32 sucks so hard it could pull m
AT91sam9g10 is an ARM 926ej-s SOC. It is an evolution of the at91sam9261 with a
faster clock speed: 266/133MHz.
Signed-off-by: Sedji Gaouaou
---
MAINTAINERS |4 +++
MAKEALL |1 +
Makefile |
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 20:59:11 Richard Stallman wrote:
> Embedded systems using core soc silicon from a number of manufacturers
> have started to use what is known as 'secure boot'. This is typically
> the case in applications which utilise conditional access system software
> to protec
> -Original Message-
> From: Pandita, Vikram
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:32 PM
> To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD; Nishanth Menon;
> Shilimkar, Santosh
> Cc: Sudeep K N; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Tom
> Subject: RE: [U-Boot] Uboot and ARM SMP support
>
> Adding Santosh to loop who h
On Thursday 25 June 2009 07:22:10 Detlev Zundel wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 June 2009 12:45:38 Detlev Zundel wrote:
> >> > It is secure because only authenticated code is allowed to be
> >> > executed, thus another step to avoid piracy, hacking of conditional
> >> > access systems etc.
> >>
> >> Run
On Thursday 25 June 2009 07:04:07 Detlev Zundel wrote:
> >> >> > but when customers absolutely state their requirements are secure
> >> >> > boot and the ability to lock their hardware so no one else can run
> >> >> > things, then i'm not about to argue with them. their response is
> >> >> > simpl
Adding Santosh to loop who has pushed the OMAP4 SMP support into Kernel.org
>-Original Message-
>From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD [mailto:plagn...@jcrosoft.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:44 AM
>To: Nishanth Menon
>Cc: Sudeep K N; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Pandita, Vikram; Tom
>Su
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:18 PM, HeungJun Kim wrote:
> This patch changed the type from unsigned long to loff_t in the
> common/env_onenand.c.
>
> The address type is changed from unsigned long to loff_t,
> but common/env_onenand.c is not yet. So, this patch is needed
> to get the accurate value of
Hi Po-Yu Chuang,
> Dear Detlev Zundel,
>
> 2009/6/24 Detlev Zundel :
>>> I cannot access git in the company, but I will try that at home.
>> Why is that? If it is because of the git port not getting through a
>> company firewall, we do actually offer http:// access to our git repos -
>> just chec
>for arm I've only a theorical design as I've no SMP board for now
>but I want to see SMP boot & AMP boot supported in Mainline
Could you please provide your idea/theorical design so that we can
try out on the real hardware?
Regards,
Sudeep
___
U-Boot ma
Hi Prathika,
> --Thanks for your reply Detley. I think I was just trying to complicate
> things.I have got a better picture now.
> Before calling relcoate_code() in board.c, ifI using the command
Uhm, well, actually you should not touch U-Boot code at all. It should
simply work.
> "cp.b fc2e000
Hi ya,
> I could not understand common/memsize.c, how it works?
Like a charm ;)
> maxsize / sizeof (long), what's meaning of it? why sizeof (long) is
> dividend?
As the comment in line 50 states, "cnt" is used in pointer arithmetic,
so addr is increased in sizeof(long) bytes. maxsize however i
On 12:47 Thu 25 Jun , Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Sudeep K N said the following on 06/25/2009 12:11 PM:
> > Sorry, may be I confused you.
> > I indent to use only one core for u-boot.
> > I wanted to ask whether we need to update the cache
> > management to boot for ARM Cortex A9 SMP if we take
> >
Hi Kevin,
> This patch re-formats the s3c24x0 driver code, excluding the MTD NAND
> driver which is in patch 4, in preparation for changes to make the
> NAND driver support both s3c2410 and s3c2440 CPU's, ready for the
> addition of the Embest SBC2440-II Board.
>
> The changes are as follows:
>
> You have a strange definition of freedom - for you it is limited to the
> provider of the devices not to the users of the devices. I guess this
> is what this all boils down to.
No, it is "let the device providers and the users who have *chosen* to
use those devices sort it
Hi Mikhail,
> I'm trying to load Linux from U-Boot. I'm pretty new at this so there
> may be some obvious things wrong with what I'm doing.
> I am using ELDK 4.2 and U-Boot 2009.03 on an EP88xC rev1.1 board (MPC885
> cpu) and the linux kernel sources obtained from instructions at
> "http://www.
Hi Jon,
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Detlev Zundel wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>>> There is an enormous practical consideration stopping the licensing
>>> change. u-boot has not required copyright assignment. This means that
>>> every single person that has contributed code to u-boot needs to give
Hi Mike,
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009 12:45:38 Detlev Zundel wrote:
>> > It is secure because only authenticated code is allowed to be
>> > executed, thus another step to avoid piracy, hacking of conditional
>> > access systems etc.
>>
>> Running only authenticated code does *not* ensure security,
Hi Mike,
>> >> > but when customers absolutely state their requirements are secure boot
>> >> > and the ability to lock their hardware so no one else can run things,
>> >> > then i'm not about to argue with them. their response is simply
>> >> > "fine, we'll move on to the next guy who will satis
Hi Scott,
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:09:49AM +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote:
>> > nand_ecc.c is an exception, which not only has the "or later" language
>> > but also has an exception that makes it non-viral.
>>
>> Why do you refer to one of the most important aspects of the
>> effectiveness of the
Because of the reset_cpu is soc specific, should be move to soc
And read reset value from SYS_ID register instead of hard code
this patch also supports s3c6410
Signed-off-by: Minkyu Kang
---
cpu/arm1176/cpu.c| 16
cpu/arm1176/s3c64xx/Makefile |2 ++
cpu/arm1176
Richard,
Richard Stallman wrote:
> Embedded systems using core soc silicon from a number of manufacturers
> have started to use what is known as 'secure boot'. This is typically the
> case in applications which utilise conditional access system software to
> protect content. The em
Sudeep K N said the following on 06/25/2009 12:11 PM:
> Sorry, may be I confused you.
> I indent to use only one core for u-boot.
> I wanted to ask whether we need to update the cache
> management to boot for ARM Cortex A9 SMP if we take
> ARM Cortex A8 code as base.
> I have tried and did not requ
Sorry, may be I confused you.
I indent to use only one core for u-boot.
I wanted to ask whether we need to update the cache
management to boot for ARM Cortex A9 SMP if we take
ARM Cortex A8 code as base.
I have tried and did not require any change on top of A8 code
to run u-boot on A9 SMP.
Is that
Hello,
I am using pci multi-funtion usb HC ISP1564, but do not know how to use the
EHCI and OHCI drier in u-boot at the same time, can anybody help me or provide
me some useful infomation ?
Best Regards
Thanks,
Josh Wei___
U-Boot mailing list
U-B
The SMDKC100 Board has 256MB onenand.
So, It's bootable, if this patch is adapted thus the board use onenand_ipl.
Signed-off-by: HeungJun, Kim
---
This patch support onenand boot on SMDKC100 Board.
onenand_ipl/board/samsung/smdkc100/Makefile| 95
.../board/samsu
This patch changed the type from unsigned long to loff_t in the
common/env_onenand.c.
The address type is changed from unsigned long to loff_t,
but common/env_onenand.c is not yet. So, this patch is needed
to get the accurate value of env_addr.
Signed-off-by: HeungJun, Kim
---
The env_relocate
On 13:08 Thu 25 Jun , Sudeep K N wrote:
> >> I have seen the latest Uboot code there is no support for Cortex A9.
> >> What I would like to know is that can we reuse ARM Cortex A8 code
> >> for ARM Cortex A9 SMP system as bootloader must run in single core.
> > Yes you can re-use the A8 code bu
This patch initializes DRAM memory, OneNAND, & Board specific functions.
Also, it includes SMDKC100 configuration file & modification of Makefile.
Signed-off-by: HeungJun, Kim
---
Makefile |5 +
board/samsung/smdkc100/Makefile| 54 +++
board/sams
This patch is the serial driver for S5PC100 & SMDKC100.
Signed-off-by: HeungJun, Kim
---
drivers/serial/Makefile |1 +
drivers/serial/serial_s5pc100.c | 179 +++
2 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/seri
Signed-off-by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
CC: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
---
drivers/net/sh_eth.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/sh_eth.c b/drivers/net/sh_eth.c
index f24ded2..86cc324 100644
--- a/drivers/net/sh_eth.c
+++ b/drivers/net/sh_eth.c
@@ -546,7 +54
ESPT-Giga is SH7763-based reference board.
Board support is relatively sparse, presently supporting serial,
gigabit ethernet, USB host, and MTD.
More information (in Japanese) available at:
http://www.cente.jp/product/cente_hard/ESPT-Giga.html
Signed-off-by: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
---
Makefile
>> I have seen the latest Uboot code there is no support for Cortex A9.
>> What I would like to know is that can we reuse ARM Cortex A8 code
>> for ARM Cortex A9 SMP system as bootloader must run in single core.
> Yes you can re-use the A8 code but you will need to update the cache
> management to
On 09:33 Thu 25 Jun , Sudeep K N wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have seen the latest Uboot code there is no support for Cortex A9.
> What I would like to know is that can we reuse ARM Cortex A8 code
> for ARM Cortex A9 SMP system as bootloader must run in single core.
Yes you can re-use the A8 code but yo
89 matches
Mail list logo
