Re: [U-Boot] No console output once kernel starts loading.

Hi David, On 05/03/15 09:46, DaveKucharczyk wrote: I'm currently working on the kernel dtb for our MX53 board. U-boot loads the dtb and kernel and then gets stuck at "starting kernel...". I've triple checked the uart pad setup in imx53.dtsi This is probably a long shot, but I had the same i

Re: [U-Boot] Let's bury CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC

Hi Albert, On 04/02/15 21:29, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: Hello Graeme, On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:14:22 +1100, Graeme Russ wrote: So the first question that we need to answer is: Do the avr32, m68k, nds32, and sparc toolchains support the generation of the relevant sections needed to perform

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] dm: Add support for all targets which requires MANUAL_RELOC

Hi Albert, If we use SPL, we do not have to relocate code, I think. SPL doesn't have relocation that's why this code is not used there. It is not what I meant. If SPL can directly load the main u-boot image to the DRAM address where it is linked, we do not relocate the code in the main

[U-Boot] Let's bury CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC

Hi Guys, Since I did the initial 'full relocation' for x86 way back when (http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commit;h=1c409bc7101a24ecd47a13a4e851845d66dc23ce), there has been a lot of chatter about the ongoing need for CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC. I think it's about time we looked really hard

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] dm: Add support for all targets which requires MANUAL_RELOC

Hi Simon, Maybe I asked this before, but when can we remove CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC? What platforms need it? A quick grep yields a global define of CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC for avr32, m68k, nds32, and sparc Next question is - which of these platforms have toolchains which lack the abili

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH v2] Add support for ReachTech G2C1 board

he MMC sub-system - Initialise the Ethernet sub-system NOTE: The 'arm: mxs: Enable booting of mx28 without battery' patch MUST be applied prior to building G2C1 images using this patch Refer to the README file for detailed documentation Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ Cc: Albert Aribaud C

[U-Boot] [v3 PATCH 1/3] arm: mxs: Add debug outputs and comments to mxs SPL source files

- Add TODO comments where it is not clear if the code is doing what it is meant to be doing, even tough the board boots properly (these comments refer to existing code, not to any code added by this patch) Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ --- Changes in v2 - Add missing newlines - Add commit message

[U-Boot] [v3 PATCH 2/3] arm: mxs: Enable booting of mx28 without battery

the pre-patch behaviour) Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ Signed-off-by: Damien Gotfroi --- Changes in v2 - Implemented Damien Gotfroi's simplified version Changes in v3 - Updated commit message - Explicitly use POWER_DCDC4P2_DROPOUT_CTRL_SRC_4P2 for the DCDC4P2_DROPOUT_CONFIG define (it i

[U-Boot] [v3 PATCH 3/3] arm: mxs: Add 'Wait for JTAG user' if booted in JTAG mode

ation as a pseudo break-point when booting in JTAG mode Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ --- Changes in v2 - Added and used boot mode #defines Changes in v3 - Removed extra new-line --- arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_boot.c | 5 + arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mxs/sys_proto.h | 17 ++

[U-Boot] [v3 PATCH 0/3] Add support for booting mx28 boards without a battery

lank line from patch #3 Graeme Russ (3): arm: mxs: Add debug outputs and comments to mxs SPL source files arm: mxs: Enable booting of mx28 without battery arm: mxs: Add 'Wait for JTAG user' if booted in JTAG mode arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_boot.c | 6 ++ arch/arm/cpu/

Re: [U-Boot] [v2 PATCH 3/3] arm: mxs: Add 'Wait for JTAG user' if booted in JTAG mode

On 24/01/15 14:32, Graeme Russ wrote: When booting in JTAG mode, there is no way to use soft break-points, and no way of knowing when SPL has finished executing (so the user can issue a 'halt' command to load u-boot.bin for example) Add a debug output and simple loop to stop execut

[U-Boot] [v2 PATCH 3/3] arm: mxs: Add 'Wait for JTAG user' if booted in JTAG mode

ation as a pseudo break-point when booting in JTAG mode Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ --- Changes in v2 - Added and used boot mode #defines --- arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_boot.c | 6 ++ arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mxs/sys_proto.h | 17 + 2 files changed, 23 insertion

[U-Boot] [v2 PATCH 2/3] arm: mxs: Enable booting of mx28 without battery

Section 4.1.2 of Freescale Application Note AN4199 describes the configuration required to operate the mx28 from a 5V source without a battery. This patch implements the changes to the Freescale bootlets which allow this configuration to properly boot the mx28 processor Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ

[U-Boot] [v2 PATCH 1/3] arm: mxs: Add debug outputs and comments to mxs SPL source files

- Add TODO comments where it is not clear if the code is doing what it is meant to be doing, even tough the board boots properly (these comments refer to existing code, not to any code added by this patch) Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ --- Changes in v2 - Add missing newlines - Add commit message

[U-Boot] [v2 PATCH 0/3] Add support for booting mx28 boards without a battery

he PLL power up from spl_power_init.c to spl_mem_init.c - This patch will be considered in future rework of the power block and SDRAM initialisation code Graeme Russ (3): arm: mxs: Add debug outputs and comments to mxs SPL source files arm: mxs: Enable booting of mx28 without battery arm: mxs: Add

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] Enable booting of mx28 without battery

ou l’ exhaustivité .Les préjudices occasionnés par l’utilisation d’une information erronée ou incomplète n’entraînent en aucun cas la responsabilité de GreenWatch » -Original Message- From: Graeme Russ [mailto:gr...@tss-engineering.com] Sent: vendredi 23 janvier 2015 05:15 To: Fabio Estevam Cc: U

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] Enable booting of mx28 without battery

Hi Fabio, On 23/01/15 14:49, Fabio Estevam wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Graeme Russ wrote: I thought the DDR errors were fixed with Damien's DDR patch. Damien, can you please confirm? His response in the forum was: "About the patch posted on January, 6th, you can sim

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] Enable booting of mx28 without battery

Hi Fabio, On 23/01/15 14:01, Fabio Estevam wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Graeme Russ wrote: I've taken a look at it, but decided to leave this patch as-is. Here is what I wrote on the Freescale forum: Still curious: does the updated patch from Damien allow your system to bo

[U-Boot] Using __func__ and __LINE__ in debug outputs

Hi All, What is the general consensus on using __func__ and __LINE__ in debug outputs? My personal opinion is that distinct statements that can be grep'd are better for a couple of reasons: - It keeps the debug statements shorter - If your running a slightly older version of U-Boot, the li

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] Enable booting of mx28 without battery

Hi Fabio, On 22/01/15 23:42, Fabio Estevam wrote: Hi Graeme, On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Graeme Russ wrote: Section 4.1.2 of Freescale Application Note AN4199 describes the configuration required to operate the mx28 from a 5V source without a battery. This patch implements the changes

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] Enable booting of mx28 without battery

Hi Marek, On 22/01/15 10:27, Marek Vasut wrote: On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 12:55:15 PM, Graeme Russ wrote: Section 4.1.2 of Freescale Application Note AN4199 describes the configuration required to operate the mx28 from a 5V source without a battery. This patch implements the changes to

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/5] Add debug output to mx29 SPL source files

On 22/01/15 10:24, Marek Vasut wrote: On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 12:55:14 PM, Graeme Russ wrote: Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ Hi! - Commit message is missing. - Some of the debug outputs are missing newline (\n) character - You can use __func__ and __LINE__ in the debug output to

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 5/5] Add support for ReachTech G2C1 board

On 22/01/15 10:03, Marek Vasut wrote: On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 09:53:30 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Graeme Russ wrote: Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ It would be nice to have a commit log with the text you put in the help section that describes the

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] Enable booting of mx28 without battery

Hi Guys, @@ -868,6 +962,44 @@ static void mxs_power_configure_power_source(void) mxs_src_power_init(); +#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_MXS_VDD5V_ONLY + /* +* device configured for no source to DCDC_BATT input (5V only power +* source). This boot option doesn't waste time loo

[U-Boot] [PATCH 5/5] Add support for ReachTech G2C1 board

Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 13 ++ board/reachtech/g2c1/Kconfig | 15 ++ board/reachtech/g2c1/MAINTAINERS | 9 + board/reachtech/g2c1/Makefile| 12 ++ board/reachtech/g2c1/README | 58 + board/reachtech/g2c1/g2c1.c | 79

[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/5] Move PLL power-up from power init to memory init

) and clears the CLKCTRL_CLKSEQ_BYPASS_CPU bit (which switches the CPU clock to the PLL) It makes more sense to power-up the PLL in spl_mem_init.c. While moving the PLL power-up, we may as well properly configure how the PLL lock is started and confirmed Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ --- arch/arm

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] Enable booting of mx28 without battery

Section 4.1.2 of Freescale Application Note AN4199 describes the configuration required to operate the mx28 from a 5V source without a battery. This patch implements the changes to the Freescale bootlets which allow this configuration to properly boot the mx28 processor Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ

[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/5] Add 'Wait for JTAG user' if booted in JTAG mode

ation as a pseudo break-point when booting in JTAG mode Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ --- arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_boot.c | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_boot.c b/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_boot.c index 2a5f817..7bfc623 100644 ---

[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/5] Add debug output to mx29 SPL source files

Signed-off-by: Graeme Russ --- arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_boot.c | 1 + arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_lradc_init.c | 13 +++- arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_mem_init.c | 18 + arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/spl_power_init.c | 100 +++- 4 files changed

[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/5] Add support for G2C1 mx28 board (which has no battery)

g for JTAG user') at the completion of SPL init if booting with the bootmode jumpers set to JTAG - Move the PLL power-up to a more logical location and properly initialise and check for PLL lock - Finally, add the G2C1 board Graeme Russ (5): Add debug output to mx29 SPL source files

[U-Boot] Suggestions for ARM dev board and debugger

Hi Guys, I'm looking at getting a dev board and JTAG debugger for ARM development work. Does anyone have any suggestions on what are good options? Regards, Graeme ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-b

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 16/22] x86: board_f: Adjust x86 boot order for performance

Hi Simon & Bin, On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Bin Meng wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Bin, > > > > On 3 January 2015 at 20:26, Bin Meng wrote: > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > >>> Hi Bin, > >>> >

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 16/22] x86: board_f: Adjust x86 boot order for performance

Hi Simon, On 06/01/15 04:33, Simon Glass wrote: Nice to hear from you again! Thanks - Good to be back in the game I don't understand. Isn't the init_cache_f_r() which turns on the cache? Yes it turns on the cache, but turns off the ROM cache (they are different things). So this orderin

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 4/9] Add a simple malloc() implementation for pre-relocation

Hi Simon, Nice to see this being tackled after all the DM discussions I got involved in a long time ago (in a galaxy far far away...) I think we can save a few bytes and simplify the code if we define only the base address and current pointer in global_data.h #ifdef CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN

Re: [U-Boot] why u-boot relocate it self to RAM from flash?

Hi, On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:18 AM, FengHua wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I can not understand why u-boot relocate it self to RAM from flash? Why > is > > it not executing from flash? > > Can anybody explain. > > > > First, flash is slow. > Second, there are many data structures or variables which sh

Re: [U-Boot] examples: add again x86 standalone example

Hi Guys, On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hello Tom, Simon. > > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:47:53PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > Commit fea25720 renamed arch/i386 to arch/x86. > > > But it missed to modify examples/standalone/Makefile. > Oops - my bad :)

Re: [U-Boot] u-boot gerrit server

Hi Vadim, On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Vadim Bendebury (вб) wrote: > e > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Wolfgang, > > > [snip..] > > Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding was that we were not primarily > > interested in introducing better project managemen

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] include: define bool type in a more portable way

Hi Masahiro Yamada, On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hello Graeme > > > > Why would hacking /include/linux/stddef.h and /include/linux/types.h be > > preferable? > > The reason is this: > > > Personally, I prefer (2) to (1) because > > > - we don't need to tweak common

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] include: define bool type in a more portable way

Hi Masahiro Yamada, Why would hacking /include/linux/stddef.h and /include/linux/types.h be preferable? Regards, Graeme On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi. > > I posted v2 of this patch > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/292258/ > > > I think both of two solutions w

Re: [U-Boot] u-boot gerrit server

Hi All, You do all realise that we are going about this, to use some British vernacular, arse-about-tit Everyone agrees that the current U-Boot review workflow 'has issues' (and has had issues for quite some time). The first attempt at overcoming these issues was Patchwork. I personally think tha

Re: [U-Boot] [IMPORTANT NOTE] License handling

Hi Masahiro On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hello, Wolfgang. > > > > - New files being added to U-Boot should no longer include a > > multi-line license header; instead, they shall contain a single line > > Unique Lincense Identifier, i. e. a line like this: > > > >

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/5] Introducing SPDX-License-Identifiers

Hi Wolfgang, On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Like many other projects, U-Boot has a tradition of including big > blocks of License headers in all files. This not only blows up the > source code with mostly redundant information, but also makes it very > difficult to gen

Re: [U-Boot] decompile u-boot.bin file

Hi there ShinSham, Best bet is to contact the device manufacturer and ask for the U-Boot source code. As it is GPL, they are legally obliged to provide it to you. They are actually required to provide you with either the source when you obtained the device, or a reliable means of obtaining the sou

Re: [U-Boot] I'm coming back :)

egards, Graeme On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 01:54:45PM +1000, Graeme Russ wrote: > > > Hi Guys, > > > > Due to personal circumstances I left the U-Boot community back in late > > October 2012. > > > > Now I

Re: [U-Boot] GPL v3 only code in U-Boot

Hi Dirk, No as there is still GPLv2 only code U-Boot. Regards Graeme On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Dirk Behme wrote: > Hi, > > hopefully ;) a short question: We found that the commit > > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.**git;a=commitdiff;h=** > 3c945542dad99b1ec4a324ad6b69b8**de8829827b

Re: [U-Boot] compiled failed when turned off gcc optimazition

Hi Mike, On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Mike Dunn wrote: > On 07/01/2013 12:51 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Mike Dunn, > > > > In message <51d1c455.9010...@newsguy.com> you wrote: > >> > >> But there's a good motivation for wanting to turn off optimization. > > > > I disagree here. If you

[U-Boot] I'm coming back :)

Hi Guys, Due to personal circumstances I left the U-Boot community back in late October 2012. Now I find my circumstances have been completely flipped upside down (long story) and I will soon have much more time on my hands. Unfortunately, I do not have a dev machine yet (that may take a couple o

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 06/19] x86: Rationalise kernel booting logic and bootstage

); > @@ -363,10 +370,6 @@ int do_zboot(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char *const argv[]) > return -1; > } > > - printf("## Transferring control to Linux " > - "(at address %08x) ...\n", > - (u32

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 03/19] x86: Remove legacy board init code

| 164 - > 7 files changed, 623 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/init_wrappers.h > delete mode 100644 arch/x86/lib/board.c > delete mode 100644 arch/x86/lib/init_wrappers.c Acked-by: Graeme Russ ___

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 07/19] x86: Add TSC timer

Hi Simon, On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > This timer runs at a rate that can be calculated, well over 100MHz. It is > ideal for accurate timing and does not need interrupt servicing. > > Tidy up some old broken and unneeded implementations at the same time. > > To provid

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 10/19] x86: Re-enable PCAT timer 2 for beeping

Hi Simon, On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > While we don't want PCAT timers for timing, we want timer 2 so that we can > still make a beep. Re-purpose the PCAT driver for this, and enable it in > coreboot. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 08/19] x86: Remove old broken timer implementation

gt; -unsigned long timer_get_us(void) > -{ > - printf("timer_get_us used but not implemented.\n"); > - return 0; > -} > -#endif > -- > 1.8.2.1 > Acked-by: Graeme Russ ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 01/19] x86: Remove unused bios/pci code

Hi Simon, On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > Graeme Russ pointed out that this code is no longer used. Remove it. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h | 4 - > arch/x86/lib/Makefile | 1 - > arch/x86

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/19] x86: Remove unused portion of link script

bit BIOS emulation code (just enough to boot Linux) */ > - .bios 0 : AT ( LOADADDR(.realmode) + SIZEOF(.realmode) ) { KEEP(*(.bios)) } > - > - __bios_start = LOADADDR(.bios); > - __bios_size = SIZEOF(.bios); > - > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_RESET_VECTOR > > /* &g

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 09/19] x86: Remove ISR timer

VGA) += video.o > COBJS-$(CONFIG_CMD_ZBOOT) += zimage.o > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/timer.c b/arch/x86/lib/timer.c > deleted file mode 100644 > index fb11bfe..000 > --- a/arch/x86/lib/timer.c > +++ /dev/null > @@ -1,118 +0,0 @@ > -/* > - * (C) Copyright 2008,2

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] make hang() a weak function

Hi Andreas, On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Andreas Bießmann < andreas.de...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Hi Graeme, > > On 04/16/2013 03:35 PM, Graeme Russ wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Andreas Bießmann > > m

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] make hang() a weak function

Hi Andreas, On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Andreas Bießmann < andreas.de...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Dear Wolfgang, > > On 04/16/2013 03:05 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Andreas, > > > > In message <516d4b00.9030...@gmail.com> you wrote: > >> > >>> So it is dead code in mainline, and we

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] make hang() a weak function

Hi Andreas, On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Andreas Bießmann < andreas.de...@googlemail.com> wrote: > This patch also does some minor coding style cleanups. > > Coding style cleanups belong in a separate patch - Rules are rules ;) Regards, Graeme __

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] x86: config: Init PCI before SPI

Hi Simon, On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Since the ICH SPI controller uses PCI, we must ensure that PCI is available > before it is inited. > > This fixes the current "ICH SPI: Cannot find device" message on boot. > Hmm, if only my new init sequence code had gained wider

Re: [U-Boot] Notes from the U-Boot BOF Meeting in Geneva 2012/07/12

Hi Wolfgang, On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Simon, > > In message > you > wrote: >> >> > I have started on it - I've ported over the Kbuild infrastructure into a >> > dedicated 'kbuild' makefile which is called from the main makefile. This >> > make modifications

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 0/5] Remove old unused x86 boards and code

Hi Simon, And lines 77-88 of arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds can go as well now Regards, Graeme P.S. So glad to finally see the end of the old 16-bit BIOS crap :) On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Graeme Russ wrote: > Hi Simon, > > OK, now that I have seen the results of the patches in

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 0/5] Remove old unused x86 boards and code

Hi Simon, OK, now that I have seen the results of the patches in all their glory, there is a bit more trimming to do: - Delete arch/x86/lib/bios.h - Check usage of pci_shadow_rom() (defined in arch/x86/lib/pci.c) - In arch/x86/include/asm/pci.h, check if any of the following are unused: - p

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 5/5] x86: Remove unused real mode code

gt; delete mode 100644 arch/x86/lib/bios_setup.c > delete mode 100644 arch/x86/lib/realmode.c > delete mode 100644 arch/x86/lib/realmode_switch.S > delete mode 100644 arch/x86/lib/video_bios.c > Acked-by: Graeme Russ Regards, Graeme ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 5/5] x86: Remove unused real mode code

Hi Simon, On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Graeme, > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Graeme Russ wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> This code is pretty old and we want to support o

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 5/5] x86: Remove unused real mode code

Hi Simon, On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > This code is pretty old and we want to support only 32-bit systems now. > Keep the real mode-to-protected code in case we want to boot an x86 from > power-up, but invert the polarity of the option. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > -

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/4] x86: Remove 16-bit reset code

Hi Simon, On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > This code is not needed now, since we boot U-Boot from Coreboot on x86. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > Makefile | 4 -- > README | 4 -- > arch/x86/cpu/Makefile | 1 - > arch/

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/4] x86: Remove sc520 cpu

0_timer.c > delete mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/arch-sc520/pci.h > delete mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/arch-sc520/sc520.h > delete mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/arch-sc520/ssi.h Acked-by: Graeme Russ Regards, Graeme ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/4] x86: Remove all real mode code

Hi Simon, On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > This code is pretty old and we want to support only 32-bit systems now. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > README | 5 - > arch/x86/config.mk | 1 - > arch/x86/cpu/u-boot.lds |

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] x86: Remove eNET boards

are.h > delete mode 100644 include/configs/eNET.h Acked-by: Graeme Russ Regards, Graeme ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 3/4] x86: Allow cmdline setup in setup_zimage() to be optional

Hi Simon, On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > If we are passing this using the device tree then we may not want to > set this up here. TBD. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > arch/x86/lib/zimage.c | 21 - > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletio

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 03/10] x86: Permit bootstage and timer data to be used prior to relocation

Hi Simon, On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Graeme, > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Graeme, >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Graeme Russ >> wrote: >> > Hi Simon, >> >

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ns16550: allow UART address to be set dynamically

Hi Wolfgang, On Dec 15, 2012 6:30 PM, "Wolfgang Denk" wrote: > > Dear Graeme Russ, > > In message <50cbd313.60...@gmail.com> you wrote: > > > > I can give you an example - Remote Telemetry Units (RTUs). They usually > > have a number of serial po

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ns16550: allow UART address to be set dynamically

Hi Wolfgang, On 15/12/12 11:32, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Graeme Russ, > > In message <50cbb346.30...@gmail.com> you wrote: >> >>> And we already have a well-defined way to do this, which is the device >>> tree. So any attempts to implement somethin

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ns16550: allow UART address to be set dynamically

Hi Wolfgang, On 15/12/12 09:26, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom Rini, > > In message <50cb8ed1.7020...@ti.com> you wrote: >> >> The other part is, take a look at the Allwinner thread from a week or >> so ago. We really need to define how we want early board specific >> data to come in because if

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 13/58] x86: Set up the global data pointer in C instead of asm

his idea was proposed by Graeme Russ here: >http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/199741/ > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > Changes in v2: > - Add new patch to move gd pointer by C to asm on x86 > > arch/x86/cpu/cpu.c |4 +++- > arch/x86/cpu/start.S |

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 12/58] x86: Move gd_addr into arch_global_data

Hi Simon, On 14/12/12 17:48, Simon Glass wrote: > Move this field into arch_global_data and tidy up. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > Changes in v2: None > > arch/x86/include/asm/global_data.h |3 +-- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/inclu

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 03/10] x86: Permit bootstage and timer data to be used prior to relocation

Hi Simon, On 15/12/12 08:13, Simon Glass wrote: > It is useful to be able to access the timer before U-Boot has relocated > so that we can fully support bootstage. > > Move the relevant variables to the data region to support this. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > arch/x86/cpu/coreboot/c

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 07/20] env: Add support for callbacks to environment vars

Hi Joe, What a series! I haven't had a really good look, so I'm having a bit of trouble getting my head around it all, but this looks very impressive. I'm almost sorry for the nit I'm about to make... On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Joe Hershberger wrote: > Add support for per-variable callback

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/57] RFC: Move arch-specific global data into its own structure

Hi Wolfgang, On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Simon Glass, > > In message > you > wrote: >> >> > To be honest, I think gd should only be a temporary structure used to >> > carry specific data through the initialisation process up to the point >> > BSS becomes availab

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/57] RFC: Move arch-specific global data into its own structure

Hi Tom, On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 12/03/12 17:19, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Graeme, >> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Graeme Russ >> wrote: >>> Hi Tom, Simon, Wolfgang

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/57] RFC: Move arch-specific global data into its own structure

Hi Tom, Simon, Wolfgang, On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:06:30AM -0800, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Wolfgang, >> >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> > Dear Simon Glass, >> > >> > In message <1353100842-20126-1-git-send-email-...@

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] README.scrapyard: add missing commit IDs

Hi Wolfgang, On 30/11/2012, at 5:20 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Graeme Russ, > > In message > you > wrote: >> >>> Board ArchCPU removed Commit last known maintainer/contact >>> ===

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 01/12] x86: Allow compiling out realmode/bios code

Hi Simon, On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Graham, > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Graeme Russ wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Graeme, >>> >>> On Thu, Nov

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 01/12] x86: Allow compiling out realmode/bios code

Hi Simon, On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Graeme, > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Graeme Russ wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> > [snip] > >>> } >> >> >> Hmm, what to do about boot_zimage() in arch/x86/lib/zimage.c. If

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 01/12] x86: Allow compiling out realmode/bios code

Hi Simon, On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > From: Gabe Black > > We don't want this for coreboot, so provide a way of compiling it out. > > Signed-off-by: Gabe Black > Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > Changes in v2: > - Rename real mode

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] README.scrapyard: add missing commit IDs

Hi Wolfgang, On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Now that the patches have made it into mainline, we can also add the > commit IDs. > > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk > --- > doc/README.scrapyard | 14 +++--- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/5] x86: Fix compilation on 64-bit build machines

Hi Simon, On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Graeme Russ wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Graeme, >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> > From: Graeme Russ > >

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/5] x86: Fix compilation on 64-bit build machines

Hi Simon, On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Graeme, > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > From: Graeme Russ > [snip] > > diff --git a/examples/standalone/Makefile b/examples/standalone/Makefile > > index baa

Re: [U-Boot] Older x86 patches

Hi Simon, On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Graeme, > > As you may have seen I have resent your 5 patches just because it has > been a while. I just realised that I failed to increment the version > on the two that I tweaked. But anyway they are available in x86/next > f

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] x86: Forward declare gd_t

Hi Simon, Was there a reason to repost these patches? I notice you did a couple of tweaks and added your SoB, but for something so trivial, I don't think there was a need to repost Regards, Graeme On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > From: Graeme Russ > >

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] x86: Forward declate gd_t

Hi Marek, On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Simon Glass, > > > Hi Marek, > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > Dear Simon Glass, > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >>

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5 2/9] x86: Allow excluding reset vector code from u-boot

Hi Simon, On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Simon Glass, > > > > In message <1353961997-32762-3-git-send-email-...@chromium.org> you > wrote: > >> > >> +- CONFIG_NO_RESET_CODE > >> +

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 00/22] ARM: Allwinner sunXi (A10 & A13) SoC support

Hi Henrik, Thanks for your hard work - I did promise to help you through the patch submission process, but unfortunately a few personal issues took precedence. It's good to see not only the core A10 support, but several boards right off the bat. With respect to the boards, is putting them all in

Re: [U-Boot] Reg Bootstrapping u-boot on x86-64 for tizen

r > > > > -Original Message- > From: "Graeme Russ" > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:23pm > To: manohar.bet...@smartplayin.com > Cc: "Marek Vasut" , u-boot@lists.denx.de, "Simon Glass" > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] R

Re: [U-Boot] Reg Bootstrapping u-boot on x86-64 for tizen

.. > > Please help me what are the files i need to modify and provide me the > documentation. > > Thank you! > Best Regards, > Manohar > 8790215215 > >

Re: [U-Boot] Reg Bootstrapping u-boot on x86-64 for tizen

0215215 > > > > -Original Message- > From: "Marek Vasut" > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 6:08am > To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > Cc: manohar.bet...@smartplayin.com, "Graeme Russ" > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Reg Bootstrapping u-boot on x86-64 fo

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 13/57] x86: Move new_gd_addr to arch_global_data

Hi Simon, On 11/17/2012 08:19 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Move this field into arch_global_data and tidy up. > > This will certainly break x86, so will need Graeme's help to sort out Yes, it most certainly will break x86 :) > the problem. I would prefer not to put the architecture-specific stuff >

Re: [U-Boot] x86: Anyone willing to take over the reigns

Hi Simon, On Oct 31, 2012 3:21 AM, "Simon Glass" wrote: > > Hi Graeme, > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Graeme Russ wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I think it's finally time I admitted that I simply have too much on my > > plate and need to giv

[U-Boot] x86: Anyone willing to take over the reigns

Hi All, I think it's finally time I admitted that I simply have too much on my plate and need to give a few things up. Work and family life have got to the point where I can only manage to grab a quick hour here and there at my desk at home and I simply do not have enough time (or energy) to keep

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 20/20] x86: config: Enable AHCI support for coreboot

Hi Simon, On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Graeme, > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Graeme Russ wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> On Oct 23, 2012 4:42 PM, "Simon Glass" wrote: >>> >>> Hi Graeme, >>> >&g

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >