On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:38:52PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> their sheer overwhelming success provides us with mass-volume
> ultra-low cost hardware. to not make an effort to accommodate them
> would in this specific instance be a huge missed opportunity,
> responsibility for
Hello,
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:48:27 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fex covers *eevvveeerrthng* - right from flipping the
> > multiplexing for all 3 SD/MMC cards so that you can pretend that SD0
> > is SD2 and you can specify *different* GPIOs for each to say which
> > is
>
>
On Jun 6, 2013, at 12:07 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> [ please do try to remove debian-release from replies - my mistake
> please try not to propagage it, even though it may be too late!]
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>
> eyy, allo
On Jun 6, 2013, at 12:07 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton l...@lkcl.net wrote:
[ please do try to remove debian-release from replies - my mistake
please try not to propagage it, even though it may be too late!]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
Hello,
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:48:27 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
fex covers *eevvveeerrthng* - right from flipping the
multiplexing for all 3 SD/MMC cards so that you can pretend that SD0
is SD2 and you can specify *different* GPIOs for each to say which
is
You can do
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:38:52PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
their sheer overwhelming success provides us with mass-volume
ultra-low cost hardware. to not make an effort to accommodate them
would in this specific instance be a huge missed opportunity,
responsibility for
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:56:43PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> so there's a lot of factors which i believe the linux kernel
> developers are not aware of, and haven't taken into account, and to
> place blame onto the SoC vendors for not working with *you* when *you*
> haven't made
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> their sheer overwhelming success provides us with mass-volume
>> ultra-low cost hardware. to not make an effort to accommodate them
>> would in this specific instance be a huge missed opportunity,
> OK, this is a large volume of hardware
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 23:38:52 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> > Hi Luke,
>
> allo tomasz :)
>
> ok - much of what you say is duplicated by what russell said, so in
> effect the same reply is relevant, but there's been some
[removing debian-release again - at their request]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Allwinner has just reinvented a wheel, without even considering the fact
> that it has been already invented.
apologies, tomasz, but i believe i covered this issue in, again, my
reply to
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:46:30PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> to begin to describe the problem in getting allwinner soc source code
> upstream is this: not only do we have the usual "let's get it out the
> door as fast as possible" learning curve of a very young, very new and
>
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Luke,
allo tomasz :)
ok - much of what you say is duplicated by what russell said, so in
effect the same reply is relevant, but there's been some cross-over.
i'll summarise below and cut all but the key question below:
> I tend to
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 22:16:37 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:00:13PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > 2) Having U-Boot itself read a DT and configure itself, just like the
> > kernel does. This is relatively new, and only supported by a few
> > boards
> > (all
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:38:45PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> I haven't personally dealt with any nvidia arm devices, so I have no
> idea how those are turning out, nor have I looked much at the marvell
> ones yet (even though I have a cubox sitting on my desk I intend to play
> around
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 16:48:27 jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Ben Hutchings
wrote:
> > > The 3.8.y branch is over, so I think we have to move to 3.9, ready
> > > or
> > > not. I
[ please do try to remove debian-release from replies - my mistake
please try not to propagage it, even though it may be too late!]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
eyy, allo russell, long time since we last spoke, which was eek around
2004 for that cirrus logic
Hi Luke,
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 22:15:08 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> [i've just received word, please remove debian-release from
> discussions!]
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:46 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
> > Why don't you try converting the sunxi code over to device tree?
>
>
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:24:15PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> https://github.com/linux-sunxi/u-boot-sunxi
>
> And Then Some, stephen. there are two versions of u-boot being used:
> one is the community-assembled [GPL-compliant] one, and the other
> includes a
[ please remove debian-release from future replies! my mistake -
please don't propagate it, thanks ]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/05/2013 02:46 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>>
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:00:13PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 2) Having U-Boot itself read a DT and configure itself, just like the
> kernel does. This is relatively new, and only supported by a few boards
> (all Tegra to some extent, and a couple each Samsung Exynos and Xilinx
> boards). I
[i've just received word, please remove debian-release from discussions!]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:46 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why don't you try converting the sunxi code over to device tree?
ok. perhaps i wasn't clear. whatever is proposed has to be be
acceptable to allwinner, and
On 06/05/2013 02:46 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> mailto:l...@lkcl.net>> wrote:
...
> the detect line, which is the write-protect line, to setting the DRAM
> clock timings, saying which kernel driver must be loaded to support
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > The 3.8.y branch is over, so I think we have to move to 3.9, ready or
> > not. I merged the work in progress from trunk to sid and am going
> > through the config
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
l...@lkcl.net wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
The 3.8.y branch is over, so I think we have to move to 3.9, ready or
not. I merged the work in progress from trunk to sid and am
On 06/05/2013 02:46 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
l...@lkcl.net mailto:l...@lkcl.net wrote:
...
the detect line, which is the write-protect line, to setting the DRAM
clock timings, saying which kernel driver must be loaded to
[i've just received word, please remove debian-release from discussions!]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:46 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't you try converting the sunxi code over to device tree?
ok. perhaps i wasn't clear. whatever is proposed has to be be
acceptable to
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:00:13PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
2) Having U-Boot itself read a DT and configure itself, just like the
kernel does. This is relatively new, and only supported by a few boards
(all Tegra to some extent, and a couple each Samsung Exynos and Xilinx
boards). I
[ please remove debian-release from future replies! my mistake -
please don't propagate it, thanks ]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 06/05/2013 02:46 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:24:15PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
https://github.com/linux-sunxi/u-boot-sunxi
And Then Some, stephen. there are two versions of u-boot being used:
one is the community-assembled [GPL-compliant] one, and the other
includes a
Hi Luke,
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 22:15:08 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[i've just received word, please remove debian-release from
discussions!]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:46 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com jonsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why don't you try converting the sunxi code over to
[ please do try to remove debian-release from replies - my mistake
please try not to propagage it, even though it may be too late!]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
eyy, allo russell, long time since we last spoke, which was eek around
2004
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 16:48:27 jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
l...@lkcl.net wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk
wrote:
The 3.8.y branch is over, so I think we have to move to 3.9, ready
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:38:45PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
I haven't personally dealt with any nvidia arm devices, so I have no
idea how those are turning out, nor have I looked much at the marvell
ones yet (even though I have a cubox sitting on my desk I intend to play
around with).
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 22:16:37 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:00:13PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
2) Having U-Boot itself read a DT and configure itself, just like the
kernel does. This is relatively new, and only supported by a few
boards
(all Tegra to
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Luke,
allo tomasz :)
ok - much of what you say is duplicated by what russell said, so in
effect the same reply is relevant, but there's been some cross-over.
i'll summarise below and cut all but the key question
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:46:30PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
to begin to describe the problem in getting allwinner soc source code
upstream is this: not only do we have the usual let's get it out the
door as fast as possible learning curve of a very young, very new and
[removing debian-release again - at their request]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
Allwinner has just reinvented a wheel, without even considering the fact
that it has been already invented.
apologies, tomasz, but i believe i covered this issue in,
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 23:38:52 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Luke,
allo tomasz :)
ok - much of what you say is duplicated by what russell said, so in
effect the same reply is relevant, but
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
their sheer overwhelming success provides us with mass-volume
ultra-low cost hardware. to not make an effort to accommodate them
would in this specific instance be a huge missed opportunity,
OK, this is a large
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:56:43PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
so there's a lot of factors which i believe the linux kernel
developers are not aware of, and haven't taken into account, and to
place blame onto the SoC vendors for not working with *you* when *you*
haven't made an
40 matches
Mail list logo
