On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:38:26PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 03:43:50PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > > annoying. If nothing moves I might just go ahead with those changes and > > > simply rip the uImage make target out of the kernel as well. Maybe the > > > inconvenience will be a sufficient incentive for people to lobby proper > > > u-Boot support. And it is not like if the u-Boot patches didn't exist > > > > Oh, dear. Any pointers to the discussions on the u-boot side? > > Certainly. Many different threads actually. Here's a few: > > http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/thread=114981 > > http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/thread=115774 > > And this is not the first time this issue has come up: > > http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/thread=83824 > > http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/thread=81546/force_load=t/focus=84138 > > Yet more u-Boot woes: > > http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/thread=53973 > > I'm sure there are others, but that's what I've quickly dug out.
So why are we still supporting uboot in the mainline kernel on ARM? _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss