On Tue, 6 May 2008 07:51:55 +0200 Segher Boessenkool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OLPC? check?
No check. The kernel hardly uses the device tree at all, there.
oh, OK.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgpNcFqKyidUf.pgp
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 01:22:40PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
On 5/5/08, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did this get fixed somehow? I used to need this to boot a pcm030.
I'm sorry; I'm at a lost as to context.
On 5/6/08, Sascha Hauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 01:22:40PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
On 5/5/08, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did this get fixed somehow? I used to need this to boot a
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 7:16 PM, David Gibson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 03:48:05PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Add board support for the Phytec pcm030 mpc5200b based board. It
does not need any platform specific fixups and as such is handled
as a mpc5200 simple
Did this get fixed somehow? I used to need this to boot a pcm030.
diff --git a/fs/jffs2/scan.c b/fs/jffs2/scan.c
index 272872d..c982adc 100644
--- a/fs/jffs2/scan.c
+++ b/fs/jffs2/scan.c
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
#include linux/pagemap.h
#include linux/crc32.h
#include linux/compiler.h
+#include
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did this get fixed somehow? I used to need this to boot a pcm030.
I'm sorry; I'm at a lost as to context. Are you asking for this patch
to be applied? Or are you asking if this has been addressed in
another way?
Cheers,
g.
On 5/5/08, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did this get fixed somehow? I used to need this to boot a pcm030.
I'm sorry; I'm at a lost as to context. Are you asking for this patch
to be applied? Or are you asking
Add board support for the Phytec pcm030 mpc5200b based board. It
does not need any platform specific fixups and as such is handled
as a mpc5200 simple platform.
Those still whingeing about how horrible and hard and tedious the new
world of device trees is, take note. We've certainly had some
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Segher Boessenkool
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add board support for the Phytec pcm030 mpc5200b based board. It
does not need any platform specific fixups and as such is handled
as a mpc5200 simple platform.
Those still whingeing about how horrible
On Mon, 5 May 2008 13:38:30 -0600 Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PowerPC? check.
Sparc? check.
Microblaze? check.
OLPC? check?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgpEpqUtn0B2F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
PowerPC? check.
Sparc? check.
Microblaze? check.
OLPC? check?
No check. The kernel hardly uses the device tree at all, there.
Segher
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 03:48:05PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Add board support for the Phytec pcm030 mpc5200b based board. It
does not need any platform specific fixups and as such is handled
as a mpc5200 simple platform.
Those still whingeing about how horrible and hard and tedious the new
Add board support for the Phytec pcm030 mpc5200b based board. It
does not need any platform specific fixups and as such is handled
as a mpc5200 simple platform.
Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/pcm030.dts | 363
13 matches
Mail list logo
