Re: [PATCHv4 1/3] common: Allow for I/O mapped I/O

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 12:01:20PM +0200, mic...@reverze.net wrote: From: Michel Stam m.s...@fugro.nl Rework the current framework so that I/O mapped I/O resources are also possible. Signed-off-by: Michel Stam mic...@reverze.net Applied, thanks Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K.

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Update binding doc for i.MX IIM

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 05:58:14PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote: Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan shc_w...@mail.ru Applied, thanks Sascha --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/fsl,imx-iim.txt | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: RFC: barebox-x86 as a coreboot payload

On Apr 6, 2014, at 3:02 AM, Alexander Shiyan shc_w...@mail.ru wrote: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 23:00:29 +0400 от Antony Pavlov antonynpav...@gmail.com: Hi! I have seen your recent activity on barebox-x86 improvements. IMHO using barebox-x86 as a coreboot payload can be beneficial for barebox

Re: [PATCH 0/3] MIPS: loongson-ls1b: switch to device tree probe

-capable machine. I have revived my qemu-malta linux-boot-capable barebox branch (it also introduces PCI support, but I have to clean it): https://github.com/frantony/barebox/tree/next.mips-malta-elf-linux.20140408 So there is a chance to organize qemu-barebox-linux dts-capable system. Also AR9331

Confusion about memory layout

Hi, I'm trying to get barebox running via usb-download. Unfortunately, the verify step failed (see log below). This made me think about my memory layout, but I'm a bit helpless here. If I look at arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig, I see that several i.MX boards define different CONFIG_ARCH_TEXT_BASE.

Re: [PATCH 21/29] video: rework mode_name parameter setting

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 06:45:55PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:32:41 +0100 от Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de: We have dev_add_param_enum() now, so use it for the mode_name setting. Also drop the special case for single mode framebuffers, just add the mode_name

Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: edmqmx6: add SPI SCLK pinmux

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 12:32:09PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: Otherwise reading or writing to the SPI flash doesn't work. Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach l.st...@pengutronix.de Applied, thanks Sascha --- Sascha, this is a fairly simple fix, but a severe restriction in functionality, as

Re: [PATCH 0/3] MIPS: loongson-ls1b: switch to device tree probe

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 11:38:46AM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote: New boards should probe from devicetree and not use the platform registration code. This patchseries adds device tree stuff for Longson LS1B SoC and Loongson Tech LS1B Demo Board. Antony Pavlov (3): MIPS: add Longson LS1B

Re: Secure Boot support on Barebox

Thanks Sascha, Do you know if there are intentions from Freescale side to support Barebox as they do with u-boot 2009? BR, Igor Bezukh On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de wrote: On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 02:07:42PM +0300, Igor Bezukh wrote: Hi, I would like

Re: RFC: barebox-x86 as a coreboot payload

On Apr 6, 2014, at 10:32 PM, Michel Stam mic...@reverze.net wrote: Hello Antony, Interesting idea- I wonder if its difficult given that U-boot is already supported? Personally I have no experience with coreboot, the systems I test on are industrial x86 SBCs with their own BIOS. I

Re: [PATCH] spi: i.MX: Fix direction for CS GPIOs

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:22:15PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote: Direction for CS GPIOs (for some targets) is undefined. This patch fixes this issue. Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan shc_w...@mail.ru Applied, thanks Sascha --- drivers/spi/imx_spi.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2

Re: [PATCH] GPIO: i.MX: Implement get_direction()

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 06:17:39PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote: Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan shc_w...@mail.ru Applied, thanks Sascha --- drivers/gpio/gpio-imx.c | 10 ++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-imx.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-imx.c index

Re: Secure Boot support on Barebox

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 10:26:34AM +0300, Igor Bezukh wrote: Thanks Sascha, Do you know if there are intentions from Freescale side to support Barebox as they do with u-boot 2009? No, I don't think this will happen. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. |

Re: Confusion about memory layout

Hi Holger, On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 08:51:45AM +0200, Holger Schurig wrote: Hi, I'm trying to get barebox running via usb-download. Unfortunately, the verify step failed (see log below). This made me think about my memory layout, but I'm a bit helpless here. If I look at

[PATCH] 2048: port to barebox

Signed-off-by: Marc Kleine-Budde m...@pengutronix.de --- common/2048/2048.c| 357 ++ common/2048/LICENSE | 21 +++ common/2048/Makefile | 1 + common/2048/README.md | 32 + common/Makefile | 1 + 5 files changed, 412

Re: RFC: barebox-x86 as a coreboot payload

On 04/05/2014 09:02 PM, Alexander Shiyan wrote: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 23:00:29 +0400 от Antony Pavlov antonynpav...@gmail.com: Hi! I have seen your recent activity on barebox-x86 improvements. IMHO using barebox-x86 as a coreboot payload can be beneficial for barebox promotion. Please see

Re: [PATCH] 2048: port to barebox

Hi Marc, On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:50:42PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: ... diff --git a/common/Makefile b/common/Makefile index 204241c..b40a078 100644 --- a/common/Makefile +++ b/common/Makefile @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SHELL_HUSH)+= hush.o obj-$(CONFIG_SHELL_SIMPLE) +=