Hi Masahiro,
On 19 February 2015 at 22:43, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:56:05 -0700
> Simon Glass wrote:
>
>> Hi Masahiro,
>>
>> On 19 February 2015 at 16:46, Masahiro YAMADA
>> wrote:
>> > Simon,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2015-02-19 23:08 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass :
>
It is true that malloc is necessary for Driver Model before
relocation, but there is no good reason to reserve the malloc
space more than enough. The default value 0x400 works well.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass
---
Changes in v3: None
Changes in v2: None
arch/arm/c
From: Simon Glass
At present defaults in arch-specific Kconfig files are ignored if the
top-level item comes ahead of it in include order. This means that it is
not possible to have a U-Boot default that architectures and boards can
override. This does not seem very useful.
Move the include earl
Since commit b724bd7d6349 (dm: Kconfig: Move CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
to Kconfig), the ".config" created by the configuration has been
wrong.
For example, the following is a snippet of the ".config" generated
by "make beaver_defconfig":
--->8-
CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR
Hi Masahiro,
On 19 February 2015 at 22:24, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Now the default value of CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN can be overridden
> by SoC Kconfig file, but we still have to add the same conditional
> "if SYS_MALLOC_F" to every default. Otherwise, a broken .config
> file could be generated.
To use Derive Model before relocation, CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F
must be enabled. This should probably be a common requirement
for all the boards with Driver Model implementation.
Let's handle it globally rather than per-SoC or per-board.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada
---
Changes in v3:
- Newly ad
Hi Masahiro,
On 19 February 2015 at 22:24, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Since commit b724bd7d6349 (dm: Kconfig: Move CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
> to Kconfig), the ".config" created by the configuration has been
> wrong.
>
> For example, the following is a snippet of the ".config" generated
> by "make be
2015-02-20 14:24 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada :
> Now the default value of CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN can be overridden
> by SoC Kconfig file, but we still have to add the same conditional
> "if SYS_MALLOC_F" to every default. Otherwise, a broken .config
> file could be generated. It is too painful.
>
Hi Masahiro,
On 20 February 2015 at 05:12, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:01:53 -0700
> Simon Glass wrote:
>
>> > +#include
>> > +#include
>> > +#include
>> > +#include
>> > +#include "xhci.h"
>> > +
>> > +DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
>> > +
>> > +#define FDT
Hi Simon,
2015-02-21 2:10 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass :
>>
>>
>> I have thought about this for a while.
>>
>> I think we should always generate the sane .config in any cases.
>> I hesitate to omit "if SYS_MALLOC_F", but I understand your pain.
>>
>> So, I have proposed another solution:
>> http://patc
+Stephen
Hi Masahiro,
On 19 February 2015 at 22:25, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Now CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined in Kconfig, so
> "!depends on SPL_BUILD" and "if !SPL_BUILD" are redundant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada
> ---
>
> Changes in v3: None
> Changes in v2:
> - Fix a typo in comm
When Kconfig for U-boot was examined, one of the biggest issues was
how to support multiple images (Normal, SPL, TPL). There were
actually two options, "single .config" and "multiple .config".
After some discussions and thought experiments, I chose the latter,
i.e. to create ".config", "spl/.confi
Masahiro Yamada (5):
ARM: UniPhier: set CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F to the global default value
malloc_f: fix broken .config caused by CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F
kconfig: switch to single .config configuration
kconfig: remove unneeded dependency on !SPL_BUILD
malloc_f: enable SYS_MALLOC_F by default if
Now CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined in Kconfig, so
"!depends on SPL_BUILD" and "if !SPL_BUILD" are redundant.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada
---
Changes in v3: None
Changes in v2:
- Fix a typo in commit description
Kconfig | 12 ++--
arch/arm/Kconfig
On 19 February 2015 at 22:24, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> When Kconfig for U-boot was examined, one of the biggest issues was
> how to support multiple images (Normal, SPL, TPL). There were
> actually two options, "single .config" and "multiple .config".
> After some discussions and thought experime
On 02/20/2015 02:34 AM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
Hello,
On 02/19/2015 06:09 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/19/2015 05:11 AM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
Hello,
On 02/18/2015 05:39 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/17/2015 10:01 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
+Stephen who might have an opinion on this
On 02/20/2015 10:06 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
+Stephen
Hi Masahiro,
On 19 February 2015 at 22:25, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
Now CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined in Kconfig, so
"!depends on SPL_BUILD" and "if !SPL_BUILD" are redundant.
diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
index 41f3220
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:11:04 +0100
Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20-02-15 11:36, Siarhei Siamashka wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:19:51 +0100
> > Hans de Goede wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 20-02-15 09:08, Siarhei Siamashka wrote:
> >>> Store the 'compatibility revision' number in the
Hi,
On 20 February 2015 at 10:54, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/20/2015 10:06 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> +Stephen
>>
>> Hi Masahiro,
>>
>> On 19 February 2015 at 22:25, Masahiro Yamada
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Now CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined in Kconfig, so
>>> "!depends on SPL_BUILD" and "if !SPL
On 19 February 2015 at 15:41, Sjoerd Simons
wrote:
> Make the sandbox setup more generic/examplary by including
> config_distro_defaults.h and config_distro_bootcmd.h.
>
> Among other things this makes it easy to test whether images will boot
> though with the standard distro bootcmds by running e
Hi Sjoerd,
On 19 February 2015 at 15:41, Sjoerd Simons
wrote:
> Add dummy bootz_setup implementation allowing the u-boot sandbox to run
> bootz. This recognizes both ARM and x86 zImages to validate a valid
> zImage was loaded.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons
> ---
> arch/sandbox/cpu/cpu.c | 20
Hi Masahiro,
On 20 February 2015 at 10:30, Masahiro YAMADA wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> 2015-02-21 2:10 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass :
>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have thought about this for a while.
>>>
>>> I think we should always generate the sane .config in any cases.
>>> I hesitate to omit "if SYS_MALLOC_F", but I
Hi Sjoerd,
On 19 February 2015 at 15:41, Sjoerd Simons
wrote:
> Only do sandbox filesystem access when using the hostfs device
> interface, rather then falling back to it in all cases. This prevents
> confusion situations due to the fallback being taken rather then an
> unsupported error being ra
Hi Sjoerd,
On 19 February 2015 at 15:41, Sjoerd Simons
wrote:
> A common pattern to check if a certain device exists (e.g. in
> config_distro_bootcmd) is to use: dev [device]
>
> Implement host dev [device] so this pattern can be used for sandbox host
> devices.
I don't see where this actually
Hi Sjoerd,
On 19 February 2015 at 15:41, Sjoerd Simons
wrote:
> Properly map memory through map_sysmem so that pxe can be used from the
> sandbox.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons
Please run your patches through patman as you seem to have style
violations. Also can you add some notes about how
+Stephen who knows more about this stuff
On 19 February 2015 at 15:41, Sjoerd Simons
wrote:
> Define the common shared block environment for the host interface in
> preperation for the sandbox build to use config_distro_bootcmd.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons
> ---
> include/config_distro_boo
Hi,
On 20 February 2015 at 10:50, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/20/2015 02:34 AM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 02/19/2015 06:09 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/19/2015 05:11 AM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
Hello,
On 02/18/2015 05:39 PM, Stephen Warren
Hi Marek,
On 19 February 2015 at 11:19, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 04:24:02 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Marek,
>
> Hi Simon,
>
>> On 19 February 2015 at 07:34, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> > On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 03:29:52 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> >> Hi Marek,
>
Hi Joe,
On 19 February 2015 at 16:44, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> On 16 February 2015 at 22:16, Joe Hershberger
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Simon,
>> >
>> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
Hi Stephen,
2015-02-20 6:13 GMT+09:00 Stephen Warren :
> On 02/19/2015 12:55 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>
>> When Kconfig for U-boot was examined, one of the biggest issues was
>> how to support multiple images (Normal, SPL, TPL). There were
>> actually two options, "single .config" and "multip
Hi Stephen,
On 19 February 2015 at 14:13, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/19/2015 12:55 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>
>> When Kconfig for U-boot was examined, one of the biggest issues was
>> how to support multiple images (Normal, SPL, TPL). There were
>> actually two options, "single .config" an
Hi Simon, Stephen,
2015-02-21 3:39 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass :
> Hi,
>
> On 20 February 2015 at 10:54, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/20/2015 10:06 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> +Stephen
>>>
>>> Hi Masahiro,
>>>
>>> On 19 February 2015 at 22:25, Masahiro Yamada
>>> wrote:
Now CONFIG_SPL_
Hi Simon,
2015-02-21 4:20 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass :
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 19 February 2015 at 14:13, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/19/2015 12:55 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>>
>>> When Kconfig for U-boot was examined, one of the biggest issues was
>>> how to support multiple images (Normal, SPL, T
Hi Masahiro,
On 20 February 2015 at 17:54, Masahiro YAMADA wrote:
> Hi Simon, Stephen,
>
>
> 2015-02-21 3:39 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 20 February 2015 at 10:54, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 02/20/2015 10:06 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
+Stephen
Hi Masahiro,
Hi Simon,
2015-02-21 11:28 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass :
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> On 20 February 2015 at 17:54, Masahiro YAMADA
> wrote:
>> Hi Simon, Stephen,
>>
>>
>> 2015-02-21 3:39 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 20 February 2015 at 10:54, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 02/20/2015 10:06 AM, S
Hi Masahiro,
On 20 February 2015 at 17:55, Masahiro YAMADA wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> 2015-02-21 4:20 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass :
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On 19 February 2015 at 14:13, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2015 12:55 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
When Kconfig for U-boot was examined,
Right now U-Boot supports the CONFIG_OLD_SUNXI_KERNEL_COMPAT option,
which makes it go out of its way in limiting the selection of PLL clock
frequencies and PMIC voltages in order not to upset outdated buggy
sunxi-3.4 kernel releases. And if the CONFIG_OLD_SUNXI_KERNEL_COMPAT
option is not set, the
Hello, Nikolay
Now I see, what you mean.
From every dump the requests made by U-Boot are the same. They're as follows:
00:00:00.000310 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 255, id 11267, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17),
length 66)
192.168.100.88.3821 > 192.168.100.254.69: 38 RRQ "uImage" octet timeout 5
101 - 138 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
