Hi,
On 10 December 2013 07:40, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 06:37:40AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 12/07/2013 12:26 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> > For standalone images, bootm had a special case where the OS boot function
>> > was NULL but did actually exist. It was just called man
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 06:37:40AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 12/07/2013 12:26 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > For standalone images, bootm had a special case where the OS boot function
> > was NULL but did actually exist. It was just called manually.
> >
> > This was removed by commit 35fc84fa wh
On 12/07/2013 12:26 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> For standalone images, bootm had a special case where the OS boot function
> was NULL but did actually exist. It was just called manually.
>
> This was removed by commit 35fc84fa which checks for the non-existence of
> this function before the special c
For standalone images, bootm had a special case where the OS boot function
was NULL but did actually exist. It was just called manually.
This was removed by commit 35fc84fa which checks for the non-existence of
this function before the special case is examined.
There is no obvious reason why stan
4 matches
Mail list logo
