On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:52:00 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote on 2010/09/13 21:21:33:
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 09:19:34 +0200
> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Dear "Ira W. Snyder",
> > > >
> > > > In message <20100910181022.ga18...@ovro.caltech.edu> you wrote:
> >
Scott Wood wrote on 2010/09/13 21:21:33:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 09:19:34 +0200
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Dear "Ira W. Snyder",
> > >
> > > In message <20100910181022.ga18...@ovro.caltech.edu> you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would you prefer a patch only for the MPC8349EMDS, or should I tr
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 09:19:34 +0200
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > Dear "Ira W. Snyder",
> >
> > In message <20100910181022.ga18...@ovro.caltech.edu> you wrote:
> > >
> > > Would you prefer a patch only for the MPC8349EMDS, or should I try and
> > > convert the other boards too? How should I know
>
> Dear "Ira W. Snyder",
>
> In message <20100910181022.ga18...@ovro.caltech.edu> you wrote:
> >
> > Would you prefer a patch only for the MPC8349EMDS, or should I try and
> > convert the other boards too? How should I know which boards are safe?
> > Grep for CONFIG_E300?
>
> I think we should try
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:53:56 +0200
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Kim Phillips,
>
> In message <20100910132606.cb2debcd.kim.phill...@freescale.com> you wrote:
> >
> > > Would you prefer a patch only for the MPC8349EMDS, or should I try and
> > > convert the other boards too? How should I know which
Dear Kim Phillips,
In message <20100910132606.cb2debcd.kim.phill...@freescale.com> you wrote:
>
> > Would you prefer a patch only for the MPC8349EMDS, or should I try and
> > convert the other boards too? How should I know which boards are safe?
> > Grep for CONFIG_E300?
>
> CONFIG_MPC83xx, since
Dear "Ira W. Snyder",
In message <20100910181022.ga18...@ovro.caltech.edu> you wrote:
>
> Would you prefer a patch only for the MPC8349EMDS, or should I try and
> convert the other boards too? How should I know which boards are safe?
> Grep for CONFIG_E300?
I think we should try and update all bo
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:10:23 -0700
"Ira W. Snyder" wrote:
> Would you prefer a patch only for the MPC8349EMDS, or should I try and
> convert the other boards too? How should I know which boards are safe?
> Grep for CONFIG_E300?
CONFIG_MPC83xx, since E300 gets hits for some mpc51xx parts. Not to
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:29:48PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Ira & Wolfgang,
>
> On Friday 10 September 2010 13:18:55 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > > Does anyone know the true maximum value for CONFIG_SYS_BOOTMAPSZ on Linux
> > > (if one even exists)?
> >
> > The CONFIG_SYS_BOOTMAPSZ thing is as
Hi Ira & Wolfgang,
On Friday 10 September 2010 13:18:55 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Does anyone know the true maximum value for CONFIG_SYS_BOOTMAPSZ on Linux
> > (if one even exists)?
>
> The CONFIG_SYS_BOOTMAPSZ thing is as old as U-Boot and PPCBoot
> exists, i. e. well over a decade. IIRC there wa
Dear "Ira W. Snyder",
In message <20100909225241.gi3...@ovro.caltech.edu> you wrote:
>
> On most (all?) 83xx boards, CONFIG_SYS_BOOTMAPSZ is set to 8MB. The comment
> says:
...
> Does anyone know the true maximum value for CONFIG_SYS_BOOTMAPSZ on Linux
> (if one even exists)?
The CONFIG_SYS_BOOT
Hello all,
I am using vanilla U-Boot on an MPC8349EMDS board with 256MB of RAM. I have
been tracking down a kernel hang very early during boot, and have traced it
back to a U-Boot bug. The bug has to do with the way CONFIG_SYS_BOOTMAPSZ
is set.
Please read through this thread for more lots more i
12 matches
Mail list logo