Dear Aneesh V,
In message <4df8a0c0.2040...@ti.com> you wrote:
>
> >> Of course, this is assuming the existing Makefile structure. With the
> >> new Makefile structure you are suggesting this may not hold good.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> I was saying that my suggestion of delegating everything to boar
Dear Wolfgang,
On Wednesday 15 June 2011 05:34 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Aneesh,
>
> In message<4df88f45.9090...@ti.com> you wrote:
>>
>>> I don't get this. Why don't we just pass the required make target
>>> from the top level Makefile? If we want to build "onenand-ipl-2k.bin"
>>> then t
Dear Aneesh,
In message <4df88f45.9090...@ti.com> you wrote:
>
> > I don't get this. Why don't we just pass the required make target
> > from the top level Makefile? If we want to build "onenand-ipl-2k.bin"
> > then this would result in running "make onenand-ipl-2k.bin" in the
> > respective dir
Dear Wolfgang,
On Wednesday 15 June 2011 03:43 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Aneesh V,
>
> In message<4dde5afe.9000...@ti.com> you wrote:
>>
>> I do not have any issue in having media specific files in their
>> respective directories. However, I would like to see the 'Makefile's
>> coming from
Dear Aneesh V,
In message <4dde5afe.9000...@ti.com> you wrote:
>
> I do not have any issue in having media specific files in their
> respective directories. However, I would like to see the 'Makefile's
> coming from the same directory tree irrespective of the media. So, how
> about something li
Hi Wolfgang,
On Thursday 26 May 2011 07:21 PM, Aneesh V wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> On Tuesday 17 May 2011 01:46 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Aneesh V,
>>
>> In message<4dd21cd8.2080...@ti.com> you wrote:
>>>
There are common, board independent parts both in spl/nand and
spl/onenand.
>>>
Hi Wolfgang,
On Thursday 26 May 2011 07:21 PM, Aneesh V wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> On Tuesday 17 May 2011 01:46 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Aneesh V,
>>
>> In message<4dd21cd8.2080...@ti.com> you wrote:
>>>
There are common, board independent parts both in spl/nand and
spl/onenand.
>>>
Hi Wolfgang,
On Tuesday 17 May 2011 01:46 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Aneesh V,
>
> In message<4dd21cd8.2080...@ti.com> you wrote:
>>
>>> There are common, board independent parts both in spl/nand and
>>> spl/onenand.
>>
>> How about having them at the root level in 'spl/' ?
>
> Why? It seems
On Wed, 18 May 2011 10:35:56 +0530
Aneesh V wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 May 2011 12:09 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> +.PHONEY : SPL
> >
> > .PHONY
>
> Oops! I wonder how it was working then. My real patch too had the same
> mistake!
Well, .PHONY is mainly a performance hint if there's no actual file or
Hi Scott,
On Tuesday 17 May 2011 12:09 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 19:40:30 +0530
> Aneesh V wrote:
>
>> Hi Wolfgang,
>>
>> On Monday 16 May 2011 01:22 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> I think, in the first step of this series, we should move the existing
>>> code from nand_spl and on
Dear Aneesh V,
In message <4dd21cd8.2080...@ti.com> you wrote:
>
> > There are common, board independent parts both in spl/nand and
> > spl/onenand.
>
> How about having them at the root level in 'spl/' ?
Why? It seems more logical to me to group nand and onenand related
files in their own subd
Hi Wolfgang,
On Monday 16 May 2011 09:13 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Aneesh V,
>
> In message<4dd13056.3000...@ti.com> you wrote:
>>
>>> Again, this appears to be not the right order.
>>>
>>> I think, in the first step of this series, we should move the existing
>>> code from nand_spl and one
On Mon, 16 May 2011 19:40:30 +0530
Aneesh V wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> On Monday 16 May 2011 01:22 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > I think, in the first step of this series, we should move the existing
> > code from nand_spl and onenand_ipl into something like spl/nand and
> > spl/onenand, respectiv
Dear Aneesh V,
In message <4dd13056.3000...@ti.com> you wrote:
>
> > Again, this appears to be not the right order.
> >
> > I think, in the first step of this series, we should move the existing
> > code from nand_spl and onenand_ipl into something like spl/nand and
> > spl/onenand, respectivly,
Hi Simon,
On Monday 16 May 2011 03:18 PM, Simon Schwarz wrote:
> Hi Aneesh,
>
> I recently started to work on a similar topic: omap3 (devkit8000)
> nand_spl support. So I'am really interested in your OMAP4/common work
> here ;)
>
> In this patch comment you say its common for OMAP3/4 but in
> pre
Hi Wolfgang,
On Monday 16 May 2011 01:23 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Aneesh V,
>
> In message<1305472900-4004-9-git-send-email-ane...@ti.com> you wrote:
>> Add the basic spl framework and linker script common for OMAP3/4
>> platforms.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh V
> ...
>> +void board_init_r(
Hi Wolfgang,
On Monday 16 May 2011 01:22 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Aneesh V,
>
> In message<1305472900-4004-9-git-send-email-ane...@ti.com> you wrote:
>> Add the basic spl framework and linker script common for OMAP3/4
>> platforms.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh V
>> ---
>> spl/board/ti/spl
Hi Aneesh,
I recently started to work on a similar topic: omap3 (devkit8000) nand_spl
support. So I'am really interested in your OMAP4/common work here ;)
In this patch comment you say its common for OMAP3/4 but in
preloader_console_init() is a call to omap4_rev_string()):
> printf("Texas Instru
Dear Aneesh V,
In message <1305472900-4004-9-git-send-email-ane...@ti.com> you wrote:
> Add the basic spl framework and linker script common for OMAP3/4
> platforms.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh V
...
> +void board_init_r(gd_t *id, ulong dummy)
> +{
> + for (;;)
> + ;
> +}
Also, th
Dear Aneesh V,
In message <1305472900-4004-9-git-send-email-ane...@ti.com> you wrote:
> Add the basic spl framework and linker script common for OMAP3/4
> platforms.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh V
> ---
> spl/board/ti/spl-omap.c | 47 ++
> spl/board/ti/spl-omap.
Add the basic spl framework and linker script common for OMAP3/4
platforms.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh V
---
spl/board/ti/spl-omap.c | 47 ++
spl/board/ti/spl-omap.lds | 62 +
2 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 0 delet
21 matches
Mail list logo
