On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > What follows is a patch series to support NAND environment under Linux,
> > including bad blocks. In principle, this is just one logical change, but
> > it is a big one... S
Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> As you know, in the tool we have to decide at run-time whether we are
> dealing with a single environment copy or with current / redundant
> configuration. With NAND support when _writing_ environment to NAND you
> have
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >
> > 1. do not use the union
> >
> > well, I would still prefer to use it and I hope I will be allowed to do so
> > in a separate NAND-tool. I agree, it would be better to use the definition
> > from the en
Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> This seems to be also the case in the mainline version, and fixing it
> would take a bit more than a oneliner - just including produces
> a couple of "redefeined" warnings.
Hm. This used to work before. Can you bisect i
Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> 1. do not use the union
>
> well, I would still prefer to use it and I hope I will be allowed to do so
> in a separate NAND-tool. I agree, it would be better to use the definition
> from the environment.h directly. But:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > New issue: I just noted that the default environment built into the
> > fw_ tool has not much to do with the default environment build into
> > the U-Boot binary image; in theory both should be the same. Don;t
> > know yet if this is a n
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >
> > Ok, how about this: we leave the current fw_env.c as it is, I submit
> > _exactly_ the state after applying my 6 patches as a new file, with
> > suitable changes to the
Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Ok, how about this: we leave the current fw_env.c as it is, I submit
> _exactly_ the state after applying my 6 patches as a new file, with
> suitable changes to the Makefile, fix building with MTD_VERSION=old, and
> try
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > What follows is a patch series to support NAND environment under Linux,
> > including bad blocks. In principle, this is just one logical change, but
> > it is a big one... S
Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> What follows is a patch series to support NAND environment under Linux,
> including bad blocks. In principle, this is just one logical change, but
> it is a big one... So I split it into 6 smaller patches, which should be
>
What follows is a patch series to support NAND environment under Linux,
including bad blocks. In principle, this is just one logical change, but
it is a big one... So I split it into 6 smaller patches, which should be
easier to review. Tested with and without redundant environment, with an
inje
11 matches
Mail list logo
