Hi Ben,
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 01:20:36, Ben Gardiner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Hello everybody.
> >
> > I apologise for being a bit late with this announcement:
> >
> > * U-Boot v2010.12-rc2 was released on Sunday, November 28.
> >
> > * Release "v2010.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 17:02:50, Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> The TI DA850/OMAP-L138/AM18x EVM can be populated with devices
> having different maximum allowed CPU clock rating.
>
> The maximum clock the chip can support can only be determined from
> the label on the package (not so
Hi Ben,
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 19:31:02, Ben Gardiner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:44:58, Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> >> The TI DA850/OMAP-L138/AM18x EVM can be populated with devices
Hello All,
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:44:58, Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> The TI DA850/OMAP-L138/AM18x EVM can be populated with devices
> having different maximum allowed CPU clock rating.
>
> The maximum clock the chip can support can only be determined from
> the label on the packag
Hi Stefano,
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 13:51:46, Stefano Babic wrote:
> Sekhar Nori wrote:
> > The TI DA850/OMAP-L138/AM18x EVM can be populated with devices
> > having different maximum allowed CPU clock rating.
> >
> > The maximum clock the chip can support can only be determined from
> > the labe
Hi Detlev,
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 21:23:46, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Sekhar,
>
> > The TI DA850/OMAP-L138/AM18x EVM can be populated with devices
> > having different maximum allowed CPU clock rating.
> >
> > The maximum clock the chip can support can only be determined from
> > the label on th
Hi Detlev,
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 20:46:16, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> And by the way, if you still fail to see any point in my reasoning, then
> remember that I never NAKed your patches - I was only trying to help.
> The repsective custodians have the final word over acceptance.
Thanks for the rev
Hi Detlev,
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 17:42:32, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> >> > Yes, but I am still unconvinced ATAG_REVISION is not suitable for this
> >> > purpose.
> >>
> >> When writing code which should also be maintainable by other people it
> >> is a good idea to consider common expectations also
Hi Detlev,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 16:09:41, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Nori,
>
> >> A revision for me is attached to certain bugs/problems which we may need
> >> to work around in software. Think about something like "we can enable
> >> caching only on rev2 CPUs". For all I know, the ATAG_REVIS
Hi Detlev,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 14:00:21, Detlev Zundel wrote:
>
> A revision for me is attached to certain bugs/problems which we may need
> to work around in software. Think about something like "we can enable
> caching only on rev2 CPUs". For all I know, the ATAG_REVISION tag seems
> to c
Hi Detlev,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 18:23:42, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Sekhar,
>
> > The TI DA850/OMAP-L138/AM18x EVM can be populated with devices
> > of different speed grades.
> >
> > The maximum speed the chip can support can only be determined from
> > the label on the package (not software
Hi Nishanth,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:13:10, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 08/11/2010 10:37 AM, Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> > Hi Nishanth,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:33:29, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> >> On 08/10/2010 06:39 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> >
>
Hi Nishanth,
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:33:29, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 08/10/2010 06:39 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> > diff --git a/board/davinci/da8xxevm/da850evm.c
> > b/board/davinci/da8xxevm/da850evm.c
> > index 959b2c6..6a6d4fb 100644
> > --- a/board/davinci/da8xxevm/da850evm.c
> > +++ b/boa
Hi Delio,
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 17:11:56, Delio Brignoli wrote:
> Hello Wolfgang,
>
> On 21/05/2010, at 15:13, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> + *rxp = buf_reg_val & 0xFF;
> >> + rxp++;
> >> + }
> >
> > Please change into:
> >
> >
Hi Delio,
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 18:27:51, Delio Brignoli wrote:
> Reduce the number of reads per byte transferred on the BUF register from 2 to
> 1 and
> take advantage of the TX buffer in the SPI module.
The patch looks good to me.
Can you please publish some sort of numbers in the
patch de
Hi Sandeep,
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 23:01:31, Paulraj, Sandeep wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Hello Paulraj,
> >
> > On 13/05/2010, at 17:10, Paulraj, Sandeep wrote:
> > >> Reduce the number of reads per byte transferred on the BUF register
> > from 2
> > >> to 1 and
> > >> take advantage of the TX buffer in
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 03:59:22, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Delio Brignoli,
>
> please mind the NetiQuette and restrict your line length to some 70
> charatcers or so. Thanks.
>
> In message <4d573595-069a-4490-af2d-38ed3aad7...@audioscience.com> you wrote:
> >
> > I am working on reducing boot
Hello Delio,
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 05:00:49, Delio Brignoli wrote:
> Hello Wolfgang,
>
> On 24/04/2010, at 10:29 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > please mind the NetiQuette and restrict your line length to some 70
> > charatcers or so. Thanks.
>
> Will do, thanks.
>
> > Everything is slow as caches
18 matches
Mail list logo
