Hi,
I would like to support UBI under U-Boot. I could successfully flash a
raw UBIFS image with the "ubi write" command, and also a UBI (ubinize)
image with the nand write command. So it's working well. But in the
second case, I will loose all existing information (e.g. the erase
counters).
raid, it
can't pass other arguments too, like ethernet address, etc.)
Thanks in advance!
Best regards,
Robert Hodaszi
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
t;Enable single step
mode" flag in the processor's debug CP0 register, and clear when I'm
using breakpoints, and other goodies... :)
Best regards,
Robert Hodaszi
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
helps.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Matt
>
I don't know yet, if it can or can't pass other arguments. I check only
that one so far. But the command line parameters work well, I tried the
kgdb, the ramdisk, etc. It's only a problem with this environment
variable. But I'm just debugging...
Best regards,
Robert Hodaszi
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
rd_size, nor the flash_start and flash_size
environment parameters, but checks the memsize and ethaddr parameters.
At least I couldn't find it. Is it true, or I'm blind? Did anybody use
this U-Boot feature?
Best regards,
Robert Hodaszi
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
transmit function rounded it down to the
alignment boundary, and so caused invalid data transmission. (By the
way. Shouldn't the transmit function check whether the alignment is
proper, and throw an error message, instead of round it down? That would
make more sense.)
Best regards,
Robert Hodasz
gards,
Robert Hodaszi
On 2013-09-12 12:50, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Hector Palacios,
Hello,
Going back to this old thread I have some news regarding the problem with
TFTP transmissions blocking (timed out) after 10 seconds on the FEC of the
MX28. See below:
On 07/17/2013 05:55 PM, Hector Palacios
On 2013-09-12 16:31, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Robert Hodaszi,
Please do not top-post.
Memalign should do here with proper rounding. Can you prepare another patch
please?
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
Ok. I will try to do that tomorrow.
Best regards,
Robert Hodaszi
would be nicer to allocate the memory with malloc, and
should do that at initialization time.
Best regards,
Robert Hodaszi
On 2013-09-12 16:05, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Robert Hodaszi,
Hi,
Sorry, hopefully that will be a plain-text.
There are a lot of bug announcement, just make a search:
http
I can reproduce the problem here, but the last time
I tried I was not able to.
Maybe the gcc version that Robert and Hector pointed out may explain
the different behaviour.
Regards,
Fabio Estevam
Ok. Then what about if I would use the stack, but align the buffer manually.
From: Robert Hodaszi
On 2013-09-13 13:11, Robert Hodaszi wrote:
On 2013-09-12 21:37, Fabio Estevam wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Fabio Estevam,
In message
you wrote:
It makes perfect sense to allocate variable with function scope only
on the stack. That's what the
//40040148: 4008a880.word 0x4008a880//
//4004014c: 40068c50.word 0x40068c50//
/
Robert Hodaszi
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
12 matches
Mail list logo
