On 10/08/2012 02:58 PM, Troy Kisky wrote:
On 10/8/2012 6:54 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
On 05/10/2012 01:28, Troy Kisky wrote:
On 10/3/2012 8:00 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Troy Kisky
<troy.ki...@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
The prompt is not appropriate if not running on
a mx6q processor.
Signed-off-by: Troy Kisky <troy.ki...@boundarydevices.com>
But in this case the board name will change, no?
No, patch 29/32 sets the new boards to use the same config file
(mx6qsabrelite.h) only adding ",MX6DL" or ",MX6S" or ",MX6Q"
to the end of the line in boards.cfg
This means that CONFIG_MX6Dx is set. You can use it to set appropriately
the prompt or use a more generic name including the board name, as
"MX6SABRELITE U-Boot > ". The board is always the same, what is
I can live with "MX6SABRELITE U-Boot" but I prefer a plain "U-Boot".
The rest seems a waste of screen real estate. The long u-boot commands
are more likely to wrap. Anyone else have an opinion???
I'm with you, for selfish reasons.
When I write up instructions like these, things tend to wrap
with the longer prompt (so I usually hand-edit them):
http://boundarydevices.com/configuring-i-mx6-machines-different-screens-nitrogen6x-sabre-lite/#timesys
The marketing value of MX6SABRELITE is pretty small when someone as one on
their desk.
Regards,
Eric
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
