On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Shankar Ganesh wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM, os user wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The data in NAND chip(linux kernel and RootFS) is the same when
>> booting linux from U-Boot and from the simple loader. :-(
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Scott Wo
Hi E Robertson,
2009/4/8 E Robertson :
> Hi all,
> Is their a problem using udelay in board_init functions?
> When I do this on my at91, arm926ejs board, it seems to be in an endless loop.
> I thought this was a timer issue but I only have this problem with
> board init and not in the drivers.
> D
Hi,
May i know how to build the u-boot environment for my board?
Whats the different below. I would like to know how to build u-boot
environment. As i know its different with u-boot.bin.
make distclean
make at91sam9263ek_config
make CROSS_COMPILE=
make distclean
make at91sam9263ek_dataflash_cs
Currently the NOR & NAND support in Linux only works for the "standard"
Sequoia, the version booting for NOR flash. The NAND-booting version
has the chip-selects swapped. Here the chip-select mappings:
"Standard" NOR-booting version:
CS0 NOR
CS3 NAND
NAND-booting version:
CS0 NAND
CS3
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 05:48:19 Ravula Kishor wrote:
> I have a NOR Flash used as a boot flash (16MB) and a NAND flash (128MB)to
> store kernel/rfs on coldfire based custom board . The u-boot is running out
> of NOR flash but I have problems in enabling NAND support from u-boot. Need
> clarity
From: prafulla_wadaskar
This is Marvell's 88F6281_A0 based custom board developed
for wireless access point product
This patch is tested for-
1. Boot from DRAM/SPI flash/NFS
2. File transfer using tftp and loadb
3. SPI flash read/write/erase
4. Booting Linux kernel and RFS from SPI flash
Note: d
Currently, I have two partitions one for U- Boot and the rest for
application(kernel + application)
Total 16MB Flash
1MB U Boot
15MB "JFFS2" Application
The U boot loads the kernel from jffs2 using fsload and the system works
fine. Sometimes, during software upgrade, the problem comes when jf
Hello Dear,
I am porting Uboot to our platform which is similiar to Realview_pb11MPcore,
with the difference in Timer : Using the ARM11 MPcore onchip timer instead of
offchip SP804 Timer. As a result, i have to access the MPCore private memory
region.
According to the ARM11MPcore Technical Re
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack
Cc: Sascha Hauer
---
drivers/net/smc911x.h |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/smc911x.h b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
index 80d2ce0..2b01cf5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/smc911x.h
+++ b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
@@ -382,6 +382,7 @@
If the MAX address is given by the environment, write it back to the
hardware.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack
Cc: Sascha Hauer
---
drivers/net/smc911x.c |9 +++--
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/smc911x.c b/drivers/net/smc911x.c
index 30f2dc2..8c9a
On boards without EEPROMs, don't reset the chip on U-Boot's exit so that
the MAC set by environment settings can be used by the OS later.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack
Cc: Sascha Hauer
---
drivers/net/smc911x.c |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/s
Hi,
I am working on u-boot 1.1.6 version for PowerPC 440.I am using the
hello world application from the examples folder.
I had no issues in loading and executing it.
Now I have enabled SPI interrupt in the application. I have written for
SPI loopback.
My issue is, as there is no interrupt handle
I have a NOR Flash used as a boot flash (16MB) and a NAND flash (128MB)to store
kernel/rfs on coldfire based custom board . The u-boot is running out of NOR
flash but I have problems in enabling NAND support from u-boot. Need clarity on
couple of definitions in the board configuration file.
CF
On Wednesday 08 April 2009, prathika wrote:
> I am working on u-boot 1.1.6 version for PowerPC 440.
First of all. v1.1.6 is really old. I suggest that you use the current
(latest) version instead.
> I am using the
> hello world application from the examples folder.
> I had no issues in loading
Hi Guys,
I have few querries.
1> I want to port u-boot and linux for ARM9 architecture on Wndows XP.
is it possible?
2> If yes, please let me know how.
3> and also let me know which ARM toolchain I would use, and from where
I wud download the kernel source tree?
4> How to unzip on windows XP (tar
Hi John,
Just wanted to ping on the status of the Coldfire patches I submitted, I
noticed the submission window is closed on 2009.06 :)
http://www.nabble.com/-U-Boot---PATCH--Coldfire-M5271%3A-Activate-u-boot-system-timer-interrupt.-td22729407.html#a22729407
http://www.nabble.com/-U-Boot---PATCH
Chips supprted:-
1. 88E6161 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
2. 88E6165 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
Note: This driver is supported and tested against
kirkwood egiga interface, other interfaces can be added
Contributors:
Yotam Admon
Michael Blostein
Signed-off-by: Prafulla Wa
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Drasko,
>
> >please post U-Boot related questions on the mailing list
>
>
Hi Wolfgang,
sorry for sending e-mail to your private adress, it was metter of "reply"
and not "reply to all". Sorry for the misstake.
>
> > Please see http://en.
Dear Drasko,
in message <5ec3d7930904080651g5328ad12g3df2f28ae340...@mail.gmail.com> you
wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for your time and help. With the pointers and examples
> you gave I corrected the code (it was problem of DCaching perpiheral device
> registers region, as you pointed out), and
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Great. Maybe you want to post your patches so others can benefit from
> that acchievement, too?
It will be my pleasure, so I will take a look how can I make a usefull patch
as soon as I clean the code.
>
> Umm... is it correct to assume tha
Any ideas on how to merge device tree binaries from slave devices ?
Having a PowerPC based board with various extension boards on e.g. the
local bus with each board having some kind of PROM device (I2C, SPI
etc.) containing a dtb ... is it possible to merge this into the
existing boards dtb int
Hi Andre,
Andre Schwarz wrote:
> Any ideas on how to merge device tree binaries from slave devices ?
>
> Having a PowerPC based board with various extension boards on e.g. the
> local bus with each board having some kind of PROM device (I2C, SPI
> etc.) containing a dtb ... is it possible to me
Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> On Tuesday 31 March 2009, DATACOM - Mallmann wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to use UBI and UBIFS over a nand device. I want to create a
>> mtd partition in u-boot (with ubi part command), save a ubifs image
>> (with mkfs.ubifs), mount and load it with ubifs commands
I was wondering if there was any reason we avoid C99 features in u-
boot source.
Specifically the ability to declare variables in the middle of
functions.
There are a slew of places that we have something like:
foobar()
{
...
#ifdef CONFIG_COOL_FEATURE
u32 myvarrocks;
#endif
...
#i
OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is
fundamentally broken.
One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this device is somehow supported.
Now it is USB. Each and every USB driver exports the same set of functions,
submit_XXX_msg(...) That means there can be one and on
k...@koi8.net wrote:
> OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is
> fundamentally broken.
>
> One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this device is somehow supported.
>
> Now it is USB. Each and every USB driver exports the same set of functions,
> submit_XXX_msg(...)
Dear Drasko,
in message <5ec3d7930904080854k2db159d3rc889ce80a8d0b...@mail.gmail.com> you
wrote:
>
> > Umm... is it correct to assume that you do not use USB on your system
> > (resp. did not test USB yet) ?
>
> It is corrrect, no USB used.
Do you have USB on your board, so you can test it? I'm
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> k...@koi8.net wrote:
> > OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is
> > fundamentally broken.
> >
> > One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this device is somehow
> supported.
> >
> > Now it is USB. Each and every USB dri
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message <4a0b9aaa-4714-4c27-84a7-22fce4d91...@freescale.com> you wrote:
> I was wondering if there was any reason we avoid C99 features in u-
> boot source.
>
> Specifically the ability to declare variables in the middle of
> functions.
One reason is that I consider such c
Hi Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Kumar Gala,
>
> In message <4a0b9aaa-4714-4c27-84a7-22fce4d91...@freescale.com> you wrote:
>> I was wondering if there was any reason we avoid C99 features in u-
>> boot source.
>>
>> Specifically the ability to declare variables in the middle of
>> fun
Hi Jerry,
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:19:19PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> k...@koi8.net wrote:
> > OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is
> > fundamentally broken.
> >
> > One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this device is somehow supported.
> >
> > Now it is
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:25:16PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
>
> > k...@koi8.net wrote:
> > > OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is
> > > fundamentally broken.
> > >
> > > One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:25:16PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> >
> > > k...@koi8.net wrote:
> > > > OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing
> is
> > > > fundamentally broken.
> >
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
> ACK. I don't expect to see variables spring into life in the middle of
> nowhere.
I don't see what's wrong with that. The advantage is that the
variable is close to where it's being used, so that you can see the
context more easily.
> I
Hi,
While browsing common/console.c, I found 2 banners:
- U-Boot INITIAL CONSOLE-NOT COMPATIBLE FUNCTIONS
- U-Boot INITIAL CONSOLE-COMPATIBLE FUNCTION
What does this indicate?
One first pass, I also appeared that some functionality is duplicated
e.g. serial_puts, puts, serial_printf, printf,
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:18:45PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
> > I suppose you didn't look in the right place. We don't even have support
> > for i2c and spi in v2 :-)
>
> Ah, that's that forked one! Sorry, my bad... I thought about the new version
> of a legacy one that just shuffled source file
> -Original Message-
> From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de
> [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Timur Tabi
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:55 AM
> To: Jerry Van Baren
> Cc: U-Boot-Users ML; Kumar Gala
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] use of C99
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Jerry Van Baren
> wrote:
>
>> ACK. I don't expect to see variables spring into life in the middle of
>> nowhere.
>
> I don't see what's wrong with that. The advantage is that the
> variable is close to where it's being used, so that you can
Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
> One of the biggest problem is uncontrolled variable definitions that
> gets even nasty when variables have same names with different types;
> though under different set of #ifdefs. Quite possible for commonly
> used variable names - i, ptr, tmp, etc.
Then let's just say th
Scott Wood wrote:
> It frees the variable up for later such blocks to use. As does
> declaring iterators inside a for loop, but I guess that's forbidden as
> well. :-)
I'm not sure whether we want to allow the same variable to be defined
more than once, even with the same type, inside a functi
Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de
>> [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Timur Tabi
>> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:55 AM
>> To: Jerry Van Baren
>> Cc: U-Boot-Users ML; Kumar Gala
>> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] use of C99
>>
>> O
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:18:45PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
> > > I suppose you didn't look in the right place. We don't even have
> support
> > > for i2c and spi in v2 :-)
> >
> > Ah, that's that forked one! Sorry, my bad... I thought about the new
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, k...@koi8.net wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Robert Schwebel wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:18:45PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
> > > > I suppose you didn't look in the right place. We don't even have
> > support
> > > > for i2c and spi in v2 :-)
> > >
> > > Ah, that's
> -Original Message-
> From: Timur Tabi [mailto:ti...@freescale.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 2:28 AM
> To: Premi, Sanjeev
> Cc: Jerry Van Baren; U-Boot-Users ML; Kumar Gala
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] use of C99
>
> Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
>
> > One of the biggest problem is uncontrol
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Warren [mailto:biggerbadder...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 2:33 AM
> To: Premi, Sanjeev
> Cc: Timur Tabi; Jerry Van Baren; U-Boot-Users ML; Kumar Gala
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] use of C99
>
> Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
> >> -Original Message--
Dear Jerry Van Baren,
In message <49dcff1d.6080...@ge.com> you wrote:
>
> If I'm not confused, I've seen block-local u-boot variables, has the
> advantages of being more distinctive and limits the lifetime of the
> variable.
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_COOL_FEATURE
> {
> u32 myvarroc
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message you
wrote:
>
> I don't see what's wrong with that. The advantage is that the
> variable is close to where it's being used, so that you can see the
> context more easily.
Bear with an old man like me. I am used to the habit that variables
get decleared at the begin
Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
> Maybe for sometime the usage seems contained. Until someone decides to have
> both the COOL and HOT feature.
And that's why I said that U-Boot can allow in-function variable
declarations, but all variables must have unique names. The only
exception to that rule can be var
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 02:25:57PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
> > OK, thanks. Cloning now :)
>
> OK, got a look at it. Looks promising but it is in very early stage yet... I
> wouldn't say in pre-conception stage, but definitely on a very beginning of
> the first trimester :)
Well, you are free
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Bear with an old man like me. I am used to the habit that variables
> get decleared at the begin of a block, not in the middle of it. When
> searching for the declaration of a variable, I find it a major PITA if
> I have to scan the whole source file instea dof just looking
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 12:18:11 Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> From: prafulla_wadaskar
this part should be fixed as well
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://list
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 02:25:57PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
> > > OK, thanks. Cloning now :)
> >
> > OK, got a look at it. Looks promising but it is in very early stage
> yet... I
> > wouldn't say in pre-conception stage, but definitely on a very
>
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 07:23:39 Daniel Mack wrote:
> On boards without EEPROMs, don't reset the chip on U-Boot's exit so that
> the MAC set by environment settings can be used by the OS later.
that isnt how the MAC is passed to the OS ... this change is incorrect
the OS must be able to get th
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> It frees the variable up for later such blocks to use. As does
>> declaring iterators inside a for loop, but I guess that's forbidden as
>> well. :-)
>
> I'm not sure whether we want to allow the same variable to be defined
> more than once, even with
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> It is ugly, but much less ugly than variable declarations right in the
> middle of 200 lines of code.
200-line functions are ugly no matter what variable declaration style
you use. :-)
-Scott
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> Chips supprted:-
> 1. 88E6161 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
> 2. 88E6165 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
> Note: This driver is supported and tested against
> kirkwood egiga interface, other interfaces can be added
We
Dear Andrew Dyer,
In message you
wrote:
>
> > v2: updated as per review comments by Wolfgand Denk
>
> It's always good to spell the name of the guy with commit access right :-)
He. I'm not Russell King.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk &
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
>> Bear with an old man like me. I am used to the habit that variables
>> get decleared at the begin of a block, not in the middle of it. When
>> searching for the declaration of a variable, I find it a major PITA if
>> I h
Graeme Russ wrote:
> What if _MY_ favourite editor doesn't.
The point I'm trying to make is that I have tools at my disposal that
make certain tasks easier for me, allowing me to alter my coding style
and get the best of both worlds.
> Or what if I don't have access to
> it because I'm looking
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message <49dd290a.9010...@freescale.com> you wrote:
>
> It's like complaining to someone who has a car that you only have a
> bicycle and you have to commute 20 miles to get to work. The person who
> has a car is obviously going to tell you that your life will be easier
> if
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Timur Tabi,
>
> In message <49dd290a.9010...@freescale.com> you wrote:
>> It's like complaining to someone who has a car that you only have a
>> bicycle and you have to commute 20 miles to get to work. The person who
>> has a car is obviously going to tell you that you
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/net/mv88e61xx.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,291 @@
> +/*
> + * (C) Copyright 2009
> + * Marvell Semiconductor
> + * Prafulla Wadaskar
> + *
> + * See file CREDITS for list of people who contributed to this
> + * project.
>
Hi Prafulla,
Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> Chips supprted:-
> 1. 88E6161 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
> 2. 88E6165 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
> Note: This driver is supported and tested against
> kirkwood egiga interface, other interfaces can be added
>
> Contributors:
> Yota
Kumar Gala wrote:
> I was wondering if there was any reason we avoid C99 features in u-
> boot source.
Maybe the best reason is that the Linux kernel avoids them, and staying
consistent with the Linux coding style saves a lot of time and
headaches. IMO, this is worth the occasional clumsiness th
Larry Johnson wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> I was wondering if there was any reason we avoid C99 features in u-
>> boot source.
>
> Maybe the best reason is that the Linux kernel avoids them,
Linux has a lot more inertia than a smaller project such as u-boot.
> and staying consistent with the
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:00:40PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 April 2009 07:23:39 Daniel Mack wrote:
> > On boards without EEPROMs, don't reset the chip on U-Boot's exit so that
> > the MAC set by environment settings can be used by the OS later.
>
> that isnt how the MAC is pa
Premi, Sanjeev sez,
> I was referring to declaring variable within #ifdefs with
> belief that
> use will be contained.
>
> e.g.
> #ifdef CONFIG_COOL_FEATURE
> int i;
> int* ptr ;
> ...
> ...
> #endif
>
> ...
> ... 2 screenful down; in same function...
> ...
>
> #ifdef CO
Pink Boy wrote:
[snip]
> Pops out of hole, looks at shadow, 6 more weeks till we ship...
>
> Um... my feeling is that if one is going to declare a variable
> inside a #ifdef then that variable ought to be called something
> like
>
> int indx_CONFIG_COOL_FEATURE
>
> and
>
> u32 indx_CONFI
We bought a MPC8360E-RDK development kit to develop applications under
MontaVista CGE5.0. We were toldby the consultant whose doing our board LSP
that the U-Boot version that came with the development kit did not have
device tree support. The consultant upgraded the U-Boot to a version that
has
cmfai...@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
> We bought a MPC8360E-RDK development kit to develop applications under
> MontaVista CGE5.0. We were toldby the consultant whose doing our board LSP
> that the U-Boot version that came with the development kit did not have
> device tree support. The consultan
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 20:08:38 Daniel Mack wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:00:40PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 April 2009 07:23:39 Daniel Mack wrote:
> > > On boards without EEPROMs, don't reset the chip on U-Boot's exit so
> > > that the MAC set by environment setting
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 22:40 -0400, cmfai...@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
> We bought a MPC8360E-RDK development kit to develop applications under
> MontaVista CGE5.0. We were toldby the consultant whose doing our board LSP
> that the U-Boot version that came with the development kit did not have
>
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:13 PM, Peter Barada wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 22:40 -0400, cmfai...@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
>> We bought a MPC8360E-RDK development kit to develop applications
>> under
>> MontaVista CGE5.0. We were toldby the consultant whose doing our
>> board LSP
>> that the U
I'm glad to see I started this week's flame thread :)
- k
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Hi Francesco,
Could you make any progress?
Regards
Maneesh
> -Original Message-
> From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de
> [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Michael Trimarchi
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 2:46 PM
> To: Rendine Francesco
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subje
hi,
Thanks for that reply.I am right away checking those functions
install_hdlr() and free_hdlr()..will get back about the results in few
minutes..
Thanks & Regards,
Prathika R
Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 April 2009, prathika wrote:
>> I am working on u-boot 1.1.6 version for
Dear Pink Boy,
In message <139940.41801...@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> you wrote:
>
> Um... my feeling is that if one is going to declare a variable
> inside a #ifdef then that variable ought to be called something
> like
>
> int indx_CONFIG_COOL_FEATURE
>
> and
>
> u32 indx_CONFIG_HOT_F
Dear Peter Barada,
In message <1239250418.4414.72.ca...@blackhole> you wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 22:40 -0400, cmfai...@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
> > We bought a MPC8360E-RDK development kit to develop applications under
> > MontaVista CGE5.0. We were toldby the consultant whose doing our bo
Hi,
Gupta Maneesh-B18878 wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
>
> Could you make any progress?
>
> Regards
> Maneesh
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de
>> [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Michael Trimarchi
>> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 2:46 PM
>>
hi all,
i got the interrupt handler working for SPI Receive in PPC 440 using
install_hdlr().
Now i am trying to enable the External IRQ0 in my stand alone
application. I am trying to detect the positive of the interrupt pulse,
so i wrote corresponding bit to the UIC0_PR and UIC0_EN register and
Hi Prafulla,
We have a custom designed board with the M88E6185 and M88E6131
switch. The u-boot patches are very usefull, even though I already
finished some code to initialize the switches.
In our application it's more easy to "fully" provision the switches
when the linux kernel is up and running
81 matches
Mail list logo
