Hi Albert,
Why don;t you protect sectors where the U-Bootimage and environment
are stored?
Since the code is being developed for a development board, erasing and
flashing the uboot is frequent. This is done only to save unprotect every
time before erasing/flashing uboot
You could protect
hi wolfgang
I working on mpc8272. in the file io.h there is twi 0,RA,0 instruction.
what this instruction means and what it does? In accordance with powerpc
programmers manual this instruction must do nothing because the TO field is
zero.
thanks a lot,
seyyed morteza
Dear Wolfgang,
In message 83d1d72b0912182302m68e7ba06q5e23a695f855...@mail.gmail.com you
wrote:
--- a/common/main.c
+++ b/common/main.c
@@ -397,6 +397,7 @@ void main_loop (void)
debug (### main_loop: bootcmd=\%s\\n, s ? s : UNDEFI NED);
+#if !defined(CONFIG_SPEAR_USBTTY)
Dear Wolfgang,
In message 1260955110-5656-6-git-send-email-vipin.ku...@st.com you wrote:
Signed-off-by: Vipin vipin.ku...@st.com
...
+int misc_init_r(void)
+{
+#if defined(CONFIG_CMD_NET)
+ uchar mac_id[6];
+
+ if (!i2c_read_mac(mac_id))
+
Hi
Do the patches have to be sent at different list than this? I am wondering this
because I sent a
patch (good or bad is different story :D) for which I didn't hear back. Was it
delivered?
Thanks Regards
Himanshu
___
U-Boot mailing list
A bit on the reason why this amount of memory is needed.
I had the same problem jeff mentions. After tracing where dlmalloc
allocates its memory chunks I found out that it started allocating
memory in code space. Overwritting code space eventually resultated in
uboot crashing. Looking into
On Saturday 19 December 2009 07:52:01 Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
Do the patches have to be sent at different list than this? I am wondering
this because I sent a patch (good or bad is different story :D) for which
I didn't hear back.
there is only one list for questions/patches/etc...
Was it
Dear Himanshu Chauhan,
In message 4b2ccc71.3070...@symmetricore.com you wrote:
Do the patches have to be sent at different list than this? I am wondering
this because I sent a
patch (good or bad is different story :D) for which I didn't hear back. Was
it delivered?
When did you send it?
* prepare board config files for Soc access update
Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig js_at...@scharsoft.de
---
include/configs/afeb9260.h |4 ++
include/configs/at91cap9adk.h |4 ++
include/configs/at91rm9200dk.h | 13 -
include/configs/at91rm9200ek.h | 11 -
Hello,
on request by Wolfgang, I have try to implement SoC access for AT91
arch with c structures. Additional I have add support for AT91RM9200
in at91 tree.
I need to switch to a different project for more than half a year.
So I think, it's time to publish the result.
What this Patch set do:
*
* add new hardware header files for at91 emac, matrix, mc, pdc, st and tc
controller
* add at91rm9200 definitions, need for join at91rm9200 into at91 arch
Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig js_at...@scharsoft.de
---
include/asm-arm/arch-at91/at91_emac.h | 145 +++
* insert AT91 SoC access using c-stuctures
Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig js_at...@scharsoft.de
---
diff --git a/cpu/arm926ejs/at91/at91sam9m10g45_devices.c
b/cpu/arm926ejs/at91/at91sam9m10g45_devices.c
index 98d90f2..274a135 100644
--- a/cpu/arm926ejs/at91/at91sam9m10g45_devices.c
+++
* add new at91_gpio driver, using c structure SoC access
Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig js_at...@scharsoft.de
---
drivers/gpio/at91_gpio.c | 240
++
1 files changed, 240 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 drivers/gpio/at91_gpio.c
diff
* insert AT91 SoC access using c-stuctures
Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig js_at...@scharsoft.de
---
board/atmel/at91sam9263ek/at91sam9263ek.c | 146
+-
board/atmel/at91sam9263ek/led.c |9 +-
cpu/arm926ejs/at91/at91cap9_devices.c | 88
* add at91 soc to arm920t, needs to join at91rm9200 into at91 arch
Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig js_at...@scharsoft.de
---
cpu/arm920t/at91/Makefile| 47 ++
cpu/arm920t/at91/lowlevel_init.S | 177 ++
cpu/arm920t/at91/reset.c | 58
Sorry about the fault sender
Best regards Jens
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
* add new at91_emac driver
* using c structure SoC access
* supports NET_MULTI for AT91RM9200
Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig js_at...@scharsoft.de
---
drivers/net/at91_emac.c | 498
+++
1 files changed, 498 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode
* add at91 soc to arm920t, needs to join at91rm9200 into at91 arch
Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig js_at...@scharsoft.de
---
cpu/arm920t/at91/Makefile| 47 ++
cpu/arm920t/at91/lowlevel_init.S | 177 ++
cpu/arm920t/at91/reset.c | 58
Dear Vipin Kumar,
In message 83d1d72b0912182356u6b140b24g8ee1e97becc62...@mail.gmail.com you
wrote:
+ /* Assume that all sectors are unprotected by default */
+ for (i = 0; i CONFIG_SYS_MAX_FLASH_SECT; i++)
+ info-protect[i] = 0;
Um... is this assumption
Hi,
On 12/19/09 3:57 PM, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
U-Boot hangs with qemu-system-mips with ##unknown flash error.
Do you have any idea what's the root cause of that unknown flash
error? Is this U-Boot CFI driver issue, or Qemu-side problem?
Using CONFIG_SYS_NO_FLASH is a quick, enough
On 12/18/09 10:06 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not NACK'ing the patch. I'm just pointing out
that it's different from the Linux version.
I'm afraid 'LMO' needlessly makes you confused. Or am I missing
something?
Yes, LMO was confusing me.
Sorry for that, and thanks for
Shinya Kuribayashi wrote:
Hi,
On 12/19/09 3:57 PM, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
U-Boot hangs with qemu-system-mips with ##unknown flash error.
Do you have any idea what's the root cause of that unknown flash
error? Is this U-Boot CFI driver issue, or Qemu-side problem?
Using
22 matches
Mail list logo
