Some device drivers and their header files will
invoke some definitions for assembly code. If a
device is required to be initilized in board.S
or in lowlevel_init.S, such memory controller,
flash controller, power control units. Sometimes
we both need to access these devices in bootstrap
process an
Dear gavin...@andestech.com,
In message <50fd90c65c53fb45badeebcd84ff07f20290e...@atcpcs06.andestech.com>
you wrote:
> Hi All,
> Let's me explain the story first.
> We need NEC pci-to-usb host controller work on U-boot. Because using Faraday
> technology PCI controller, I need to complete the PC
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message <1292368731-3819-1-git-send-email-ti...@freescale.com> you wrote:
> In some usages of inline assembly, hard-coded registers were specified when a
> scratch register should have been used instead.
Is this just a cosmetic improvement, or are you fixing any real bug?
If s
Hi All,
Let's me explain the story first.
We need NEC pci-to-usb host controller work on U-boot. Because using Faraday
technology PCI controller, I need to complete the PCI driver first. Now the PCI
driver is completed. At this time, the NEC host controller can work. When
plugging a keyboard, 2
Add Faraday's ftgmac100 (gigabit ethernet)
MAC controller's driver.
Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin
---
Changes for v2:
- Coding Style cleanup
- Makefile Order sorted
- Volatile statement eliminated
- Error handling added
- Autonegotiation timeout value rechecked
- Link speed detecti
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Peter Tyser wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 22:11 +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
>> This adds support for for the PCA9535/PCA9539 family of gpio devices which
>> have 16 output pins.
>>
>> To let the driver know which devices are 16-pin it is necessary to define
>> CON
Hello,
I built u-boot-2010.09 for Freescale's P2020-RDB.
It works great !!!
The setup I used for SW4 is according to the startup guide. SW4[7] is on.
When SW4[7] is off u-boot hangs. It means:
"boot sequencer enabled and configuration information loaded from I2C ROM. A
valid ROM must be prese
In some usages of inline assembly, hard-coded registers were specified when a
scratch register should have been used instead.
Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi
---
I can't test the kgdb changes, but the rest appears to be okay.
arch/powerpc/lib/kgdb.c | 25 +++--
arch/powerpc/lib
On 17.08.2010 07:05, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
> This patch adds SD/MMC support to AT91SAM9260/9XE/9G20
> using the generic MMC framework.
>
> Signed-off-by: Reinhard Meyer
> +
> +This is
Hello,
is it possible that, start.s for arm920t is broken with relocation?
I try make my board run with relocation and start from NOR Flash.
start_code:
/*
* set the cpu to SVC32 mode
*/
mrs r0, cpsr
bic r0, r0, #0x1f
orr r0, r0, #0x
[Re: [U-Boot] 85xx board maintainership / anyone care?] On 14/12/2010 (Tue
11:10) Becky Bruce wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Kumar Gala
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >>
> >>>
On Dec 14, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Kumar Gala
> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Kumar Gala
>>> wrote:
On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Kumar Gala
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
MPC8540EVAL
>>
>> There might have been one of these relics kick
This patch fixes the acadia_nand and kilauea_nand linker scripts
which have been missing in commit ee8028b7 [ppc4xx: Cleanup for
partial linking and --gc-sections]
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese
Cc: Bernhard Weirich
---
board/amcc/acadia/u-boot-nand.lds | 49 ++-
Hi Bernhard,
On Tuesday 14 December 2010 16:11:50 Weirich, Bernhard wrote:
> I just tried to compile kilauea_nand_config from head revision and it seems
> that the fixup table is empty
>
> excerpt from System.map
> 01050f7e r lenfix
> 0105177e r lext.3710
> 010517bc r order.3928
> 01051800 A _ero
Dear Dirk,
In message <4d079060.70...@googlemail.com> you wrote:
>
> I did a readelf analysis for 3 test cases (with 2009q1-203):
Which exact versions of GCC and binutils is this?
Do we see any differences in board/ti/evm/evm.o ?
Can just use a different linker?
Or use a different tool chain f
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
In message <4d0794cf.5090...@free.fr> you wrote:
>
> I think Wolfgang does not want this fix if it is a workaround to a bug,
> although it is not clear to me if this includes toolchain bugs. In any
> case, the decision will be Wolfgang's, so it's best if he's Cc:ed just
>
On 12.12.2010 12:40, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 12/12/2010 11:32, Dirk Behme a écrit :
>
> >> 2. IIRC, the linker emits a warning, not an error. We can live some
> >> time with a warning if it is documented and it is being worked on.
> >
> > With 2009q1-203 it's an error and 'omap3_evm' isn't b
Le 14/12/2010 16:42, Dirk Behme a écrit :
(agree about the analysis)
> So I'd like to re-send the int conversion patch from
>
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2010-December/083524.html
>
> in a proper format again as a workaround for this issue.
>
> Ok?
I think Wolfgang does not want this
Hello,
I just tried to compile kilauea_nand_config from head revision and it seems
that the fixup table is empty
excerpt from System.map
01050f7e r lenfix
0105177e r lext.3710
010517bc r order.3928
01051800 A _erotext
01051800 D _GOT2_TABLE_
01053534 D _FIXUP_TABLE_
01053534 D get_dcr
01053558 D
On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:54 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Kumar Gala
> wrote:
>> List Paul Gortmaker as maintainer for SBC85xx and SBC86xx boards
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala
>> ---
>> MAINTAINERS |4 +++-
>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-
On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Kumar Gala
> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>>> MPC8540EVAL
>
> There might have been one of these relics kicking around somewhere, but I
> won't
> be able to check until
On Dec 14, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear York Sun,
>
> In message <1291863340-4354-9-git-send-email-york...@freescale.com> you wrote:
>> Use environment variable to active the interactive debugging.
> ...
>
> s/active/activate/
>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/Mak
Hi,
I am using DP83849C in my board. I am not able to figure out which is the
appropiate driver to be used. Can anyone help me out?
Thanks
- Ravi S.___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Hi Ming-Dien,
2010/12/14 Ming-Dien Chang
> Hi, Macpual
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:12 AM, wrote:
>
> >
> > > Is the series of patches (v1 to v5) increamental ?
> > > Should I apply v1 first, and then v2, v3, till v5 ?
> > > If so, what is base revision to which v1 patch is
Dear Nathan Sidwell,
In message <4d0718d5.2050...@codesourcery.com> you wrote:
>
> >> It is required by the C and C++ standards.
> >
> > Could you please provide a link? Not that I don't believe you, but
> > I'd like to understand the rationale, if there is any.
>
> C std 6.10.1 para 2
Hm... wh
Dear Stefan Roese,
In message <201012140909.27701...@denx.de> you wrote:
>
> I can do this if Wolfgang has no objections. So I'll wait a short while and
> pull it onto next then upstream pushing.
I have no objections:
Acked-by: Wolfgang Denk
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Eng
Hi, Macpual
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:12 AM, wrote:
>
> > Is the series of patches (v1 to v5) increamental ?
> > Should I apply v1 first, and then v2, v3, till v5 ?
> > If so, what is base revision to which v1 patch is applied ?
> > Thanks for your help.
> > Morgan
On Tuesday 14 December 2010 00:06:11 Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:00:51 -0600
>
> Scott Wood wrote:
> > Recent GCC (4.4+) performs out-of-line epilogues in some cases, when
> > optimizing for size. It causes a link error for _restgpr_30_x (and
> > similar) if libgcc is not linked
On Tuesday 14 December 2010 00:49:20 Scott Wood wrote:
> > Q2: What happens with older compilers, that don't need this? Is this
> > change a No-Op for these?
>
> With compilers that don't do this, the symbol references won't be
> generated, and no part of libgcc.a will be pulled in.
I tested
30 matches
Mail list logo
