You can google and you can find some patches. If I well remember the
last one is a patch for uboot 1.3.3 by olimex for a board based on
that processor (cs-e9302). I recently ported uboot to a recent version
starting from that version, there are only some adjustment to do
especially about timer
Kirkwood family controllers are highly integrated SOCs
based on Feroceon-88FR131/Sheeva-88SV131 cpu core.
SOC versions supported:-
1) 88F6281-Z0 define CONFIG_KW88F6281_Z0
2) 88F6281-A0 define CONFIG_KW88F6281_A0
3) 88F6192-A0 define CONFIG_KW88F6192_A0
Other supported
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Shankar Ganesh shankargane...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM, os user gnuse...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The data in NAND chip(linux kernel and RootFS) is the same when
booting linux from U-Boot and from the simple loader. :-(
On Sat, Apr 4,
Hi,
May i know how to build the u-boot environment for my board?
Whats the different below. I would like to know how to build u-boot
environment. As i know its different with u-boot.bin.
make distclean
make at91sam9263ek_config
make CROSS_COMPILE=path_to_cross-compiler/cross-compiler-prefix-
Currently the NOR NAND support in Linux only works for the standard
Sequoia, the version booting for NOR flash. The NAND-booting version
has the chip-selects swapped. Here the chip-select mappings:
Standard NOR-booting version:
CS0 NOR
CS3 NAND
NAND-booting version:
CS0 NAND
CS3
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 05:48:19 Ravula Kishor wrote:
I have a NOR Flash used as a boot flash (16MB) and a NAND flash (128MB)to
store kernel/rfs on coldfire based custom board . The u-boot is running out
of NOR flash but I have problems in enabling NAND support from u-boot. Need
clarity on
From: prafulla_wadaskar prafu...@marvell.com
This is Marvell's 88F6281_A0 based custom board developed
for wireless access point product
This patch is tested for-
1. Boot from DRAM/SPI flash/NFS
2. File transfer using tftp and loadb
3. SPI flash read/write/erase
4. Booting Linux kernel and RFS
Currently, I have two partitions one for U- Boot and the rest for
application(kernel + application)
Total 16MB Flash
1MB U Boot
15MB JFFS2 Application
The U boot loads the kernel from jffs2 using fsload and the system works
fine. Sometimes, during software upgrade, the problem comes when
Hello Dear,
I am porting Uboot to our platform which is similiar to Realview_pb11MPcore,
with the difference in Timer : Using the ARM11 MPcore onchip timer instead of
offchip SP804 Timer. As a result, i have to access the MPCore private memory
region.
According to the ARM11MPcore Technical
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack dan...@caiaq.de
Cc: Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de
---
drivers/net/smc911x.h |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/smc911x.h b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
index 80d2ce0..2b01cf5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/smc911x.h
+++
If the MAX address is given by the environment, write it back to the
hardware.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack dan...@caiaq.de
Cc: Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de
---
drivers/net/smc911x.c |9 +++--
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/smc911x.c
On boards without EEPROMs, don't reset the chip on U-Boot's exit so that
the MAC set by environment settings can be used by the OS later.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack dan...@caiaq.de
Cc: Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de
---
drivers/net/smc911x.c |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0
Hi,
I am working on u-boot 1.1.6 version for PowerPC 440.I am using the
hello world application from the examples folder.
I had no issues in loading and executing it.
Now I have enabled SPI interrupt in the application. I have written for
SPI loopback.
My issue is, as there is no interrupt
I have a NOR Flash used as a boot flash (16MB) and a NAND flash (128MB)to store
kernel/rfs on coldfire based custom board . The u-boot is running out of NOR
flash but I have problems in enabling NAND support from u-boot. Need clarity on
couple of definitions in the board configuration file.
On Wednesday 08 April 2009, prathika wrote:
I am working on u-boot 1.1.6 version for PowerPC 440.
First of all. v1.1.6 is really old. I suggest that you use the current
(latest) version instead.
I am using the
hello world application from the examples folder.
I had no issues in loading and
Hi Guys,
I have few querries.
1 I want to port u-boot and linux for ARM9 architecture on Wndows XP.
is it possible?
2 If yes, please let me know how.
3 and also let me know which ARM toolchain I would use, and from where
I wud download the kernel source tree?
4 How to unzip on windows XP
Hi John,
Just wanted to ping on the status of the Coldfire patches I submitted, I
noticed the submission window is closed on 2009.06 :)
http://www.nabble.com/-U-Boot---PATCH--Coldfire-M5271%3A-Activate-u-boot-system-timer-interrupt.-td22729407.html#a22729407
Chips supprted:-
1. 88E6161 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
2. 88E6165 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
Note: This driver is supported and tested against
kirkwood egiga interface, other interfaces can be added
Contributors:
Yotam Admon yo...@marvell.com
Michael Blostein
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote:
Dear Drasko,
please post U-Boot related questions on the mailing list
Hi Wolfgang,
sorry for sending e-mail to your private adress, it was metter of reply
and not reply to all. Sorry for the misstake.
Please see
Dear Drasko,
in message 5ec3d7930904080651g5328ad12g3df2f28ae340...@mail.gmail.com you
wrote:
Thank you very much for your time and help. With the pointers and examples
you gave I corrected the code (it was problem of DCaching perpiheral device
registers region, as you pointed out), and now
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote:
Great. Maybe you want to post your patches so others can benefit from
that acchievement, too?
It will be my pleasure, so I will take a look how can I make a usefull patch
as soon as I clean the code.
Umm... is it correct to
Any ideas on how to merge device tree binaries from slave devices ?
Having a PowerPC based board with various extension boards on e.g. the
local bus with each board having some kind of PROM device (I2C, SPI
etc.) containing a dtb ... is it possible to merge this into the
existing boards dtb
Hi Andre,
Andre Schwarz wrote:
Any ideas on how to merge device tree binaries from slave devices ?
Having a PowerPC based board with various extension boards on e.g. the
local bus with each board having some kind of PROM device (I2C, SPI
etc.) containing a dtb ... is it possible to merge
Stefan Roese wrote:
Hi Marcelo,
On Tuesday 31 March 2009, DATACOM - Mallmann wrote:
I'm trying to use UBI and UBIFS over a nand device. I want to create a
mtd partition in u-boot (with ubi part command), save a ubifs image
(with mkfs.ubifs), mount and load it with ubifs commands.
k...@koi8.net wrote:
OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is
fundamentally broken.
One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this device is somehow supported.
Now it is USB. Each and every USB driver exports the same set of functions,
submit_XXX_msg(...) That
Dear Drasko,
in message 5ec3d7930904080854k2db159d3rc889ce80a8d0b...@mail.gmail.com you
wrote:
Umm... is it correct to assume that you do not use USB on your system
(resp. did not test USB yet) ?
It is corrrect, no USB used.
Do you have USB on your board, so you can test it? I'm
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
k...@koi8.net wrote:
OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is
fundamentally broken.
One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this device is somehow
supported.
Now it is USB. Each and every USB driver exports
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message 4a0b9aaa-4714-4c27-84a7-22fce4d91...@freescale.com you wrote:
I was wondering if there was any reason we avoid C99 features in u-
boot source.
Specifically the ability to declare variables in the middle of
functions.
One reason is that I consider such code
Hi Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message 4a0b9aaa-4714-4c27-84a7-22fce4d91...@freescale.com you wrote:
I was wondering if there was any reason we avoid C99 features in u-
boot source.
Specifically the ability to declare variables in the middle of
functions.
One
Hi Jerry,
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:19:19PM -0400, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
k...@koi8.net wrote:
OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is
fundamentally broken.
One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this device is somehow supported.
Now it is USB. Each
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:25:16PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
k...@koi8.net wrote:
OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing is
fundamentally broken.
One supposed to have _THE_ device and only this device is
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:25:16PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Jerry Van Baren wrote:
k...@koi8.net wrote:
OK, this is _NOT_ just multiple I2C adapters... The entire thing
is
fundamentally broken.
One
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Jerry Van Baren gerald.vanba...@ge.com wrote:
ACK. I don't expect to see variables spring into life in the middle of
nowhere.
I don't see what's wrong with that. The advantage is that the
variable is close to where it's being used, so that you can see the
Hi,
While browsing common/console.c, I found 2 banners:
- U-Boot INITIAL CONSOLE-NOT COMPATIBLE FUNCTIONS
- U-Boot INITIAL CONSOLE-COMPATIBLE FUNCTION
What does this indicate?
One first pass, I also appeared that some functionality is duplicated
e.g. serial_puts, puts, serial_printf, printf,
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:18:45PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
I suppose you didn't look in the right place. We don't even have support
for i2c and spi in v2 :-)
Ah, that's that forked one! Sorry, my bad... I thought about the new version
of a legacy one that just shuffled source files to
-Original Message-
From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de
[mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Timur Tabi
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:55 AM
To: Jerry Van Baren
Cc: U-Boot-Users ML; Kumar Gala
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] use of C99
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Jerry
Timur Tabi wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Jerry Van Baren gerald.vanba...@ge.com
wrote:
ACK. I don't expect to see variables spring into life in the middle of
nowhere.
I don't see what's wrong with that. The advantage is that the
variable is close to where it's being used, so
Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
One of the biggest problem is uncontrolled variable definitions that
gets even nasty when variables have same names with different types;
though under different set of #ifdefs. Quite possible for commonly
used variable names - i, ptr, tmp, etc.
Then let's just say that
Scott Wood wrote:
It frees the variable up for later such blocks to use. As does
declaring iterators inside a for loop, but I guess that's forbidden as
well. :-)
I'm not sure whether we want to allow the same variable to be defined
more than once, even with the same type, inside a
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:18:45PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
I suppose you didn't look in the right place. We don't even have
support
for i2c and spi in v2 :-)
Ah, that's that forked one! Sorry, my bad... I thought about the new
version
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, k...@koi8.net wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:18:45PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
I suppose you didn't look in the right place. We don't even have
support
for i2c and spi in v2 :-)
Ah, that's that forked one!
-Original Message-
From: Timur Tabi [mailto:ti...@freescale.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 2:28 AM
To: Premi, Sanjeev
Cc: Jerry Van Baren; U-Boot-Users ML; Kumar Gala
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] use of C99
Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
One of the biggest problem is uncontrolled
-Original Message-
From: Ben Warren [mailto:biggerbadder...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 2:33 AM
To: Premi, Sanjeev
Cc: Timur Tabi; Jerry Van Baren; U-Boot-Users ML; Kumar Gala
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] use of C99
Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
-Original Message-
Dear Jerry Van Baren,
In message 49dcff1d.6080...@ge.com you wrote:
If I'm not confused, I've seen block-local u-boot variables, has the
advantages of being more distinctive and limits the lifetime of the
variable.
#ifdef CONFIG_COOL_FEATURE
{
u32 myvarrocks = foo
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message ed82fe3e0904081325s560fb99cg83b6aaa9176cd...@mail.gmail.com you
wrote:
I don't see what's wrong with that. The advantage is that the
variable is close to where it's being used, so that you can see the
context more easily.
Bear with an old man like me. I am used
Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
Maybe for sometime the usage seems contained. Until someone decides to have
both the COOL and HOT feature.
And that's why I said that U-Boot can allow in-function variable
declarations, but all variables must have unique names. The only
exception to that rule can be
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 02:25:57PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
OK, thanks. Cloning now :)
OK, got a look at it. Looks promising but it is in very early stage yet... I
wouldn't say in pre-conception stage, but definitely on a very beginning of
the first trimester :)
Well, you are free to
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Bear with an old man like me. I am used to the habit that variables
get decleared at the begin of a block, not in the middle of it. When
searching for the declaration of a variable, I find it a major PITA if
I have to scan the whole source file instea dof just looking at
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 12:18:11 Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
From: prafulla_wadaskar prafu...@marvell.com
this part should be fixed as well
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
U-Boot mailing list
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 02:25:57PM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote:
OK, thanks. Cloning now :)
OK, got a look at it. Looks promising but it is in very early stage
yet... I
wouldn't say in pre-conception stage, but definitely on a very
beginning
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 07:23:39 Daniel Mack wrote:
On boards without EEPROMs, don't reset the chip on U-Boot's exit so that
the MAC set by environment settings can be used by the OS later.
that isnt how the MAC is passed to the OS ... this change is incorrect
the OS must be able to get the
Timur Tabi wrote:
Scott Wood wrote:
It frees the variable up for later such blocks to use. As does
declaring iterators inside a for loop, but I guess that's forbidden as
well. :-)
I'm not sure whether we want to allow the same variable to be defined
more than once, even with the same
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
It is ugly, but much less ugly than variable declarations right in the
middle of 200 lines of code.
200-line functions are ugly no matter what variable declaration style
you use. :-)
-Scott
___
U-Boot mailing list
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Prafulla Wadaskar prafu...@marvell.com wrote:
Chips supprted:-
1. 88E6161 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
2. 88E6165 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
Note: This driver is supported and tested against
kirkwood egiga interface, other interfaces
Dear Andrew Dyer,
In message c166aa9f0904081532r7583585esc5cdcc384382d...@mail.gmail.com you
wrote:
v2: updated as per review comments by Wolfgand Denk
It's always good to spell the name of the guy with commit access right :-)
He. I'm not Russell King.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Timur Tabi ti...@freescale.com wrote:
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Bear with an old man like me. I am used to the habit that variables
get decleared at the begin of a block, not in the middle of it. When
searching for the declaration of a variable, I find it a major
Graeme Russ wrote:
What if _MY_ favourite editor doesn't.
The point I'm trying to make is that I have tools at my disposal that
make certain tasks easier for me, allowing me to alter my coding style
and get the best of both worlds.
Or what if I don't have access to
it because I'm looking at
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message 49dd290a.9010...@freescale.com you wrote:
It's like complaining to someone who has a car that you only have a
bicycle and you have to commute 20 miles to get to work. The person who
has a car is obviously going to tell you that your life will be easier
if you
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message 49dd290a.9010...@freescale.com you wrote:
It's like complaining to someone who has a car that you only have a
bicycle and you have to commute 20 miles to get to work. The person who
has a car is obviously going to tell you that your life
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Prafulla Wadaskar prafu...@marvell.com wrote:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/net/mv88e61xx.c
@@ -0,0 +1,291 @@
+/*
+ * (C) Copyright 2009
+ * Marvell Semiconductor www.marvell.com
+ * Prafulla Wadaskar prafu...@marvell.com
+ *
+ * See file CREDITS for list of
Hi Prafulla,
Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
Chips supprted:-
1. 88E6161 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
2. 88E6165 6 port gbe swtich with 5 integrated PHYs
Note: This driver is supported and tested against
kirkwood egiga interface, other interfaces can be added
Contributors:
Yotam Admon
Kumar Gala wrote:
I was wondering if there was any reason we avoid C99 features in u-
boot source.
Maybe the best reason is that the Linux kernel avoids them, and staying
consistent with the Linux coding style saves a lot of time and
headaches. IMO, this is worth the occasional clumsiness
Larry Johnson wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
I was wondering if there was any reason we avoid C99 features in u-
boot source.
Maybe the best reason is that the Linux kernel avoids them,
Linux has a lot more inertia than a smaller project such as u-boot.
and staying consistent with the Linux
Premi, Sanjeev sez,
I was referring to declaring variable within #ifdefs with
belief that
use will be contained.
e.g.
#ifdef CONFIG_COOL_FEATURE
int i;
int* ptr ;
...
...
#endif
...
... 2 screenful down; in same function...
...
#ifdef CONFIG_HOT_FEATURE
Pink Boy wrote:
[snip]
Pops out of hole, looks at shadow, 6 more weeks till we ship...
Um... my feeling is that if one is going to declare a variable
inside a #ifdef then that variable ought to be called something
like
int indx_CONFIG_COOL_FEATURE
and
u32
We bought a MPC8360E-RDK development kit to develop applications under
MontaVista CGE5.0. We were toldby the consultant whose doing our board LSP
that the U-Boot version that came with the development kit did not have
device tree support. The consultant upgraded the U-Boot to a version that
cmfai...@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
We bought a MPC8360E-RDK development kit to develop applications under
MontaVista CGE5.0. We were toldby the consultant whose doing our board LSP
that the U-Boot version that came with the development kit did not have
device tree support. The consultant
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 20:08:38 Daniel Mack wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:00:40PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009 07:23:39 Daniel Mack wrote:
On boards without EEPROMs, don't reset the chip on U-Boot's exit so
that the MAC set by environment settings can be
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 22:40 -0400, cmfai...@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
We bought a MPC8360E-RDK development kit to develop applications under
MontaVista CGE5.0. We were toldby the consultant whose doing our board LSP
that the U-Boot version that came with the development kit did not have
On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:13 PM, Peter Barada wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 22:40 -0400, cmfai...@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
We bought a MPC8360E-RDK development kit to develop applications
under
MontaVista CGE5.0. We were toldby the consultant whose doing our
board LSP
that the U-Boot
I'm glad to see I started this week's flame thread :)
- k
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Hi Francesco,
Could you make any progress?
Regards
Maneesh
-Original Message-
From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de
[mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Michael Trimarchi
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 2:46 PM
To: Rendine Francesco
Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject:
hi,
Thanks for that reply.I am right away checking those functions
install_hdlr() and free_hdlr()..will get back about the results in few
minutes..
Thanks Regards,
Prathika R
Stefan Roese wrote:
On Wednesday 08 April 2009, prathika wrote:
I am working on u-boot 1.1.6 version for
Dear Pink Boy,
In message 139940.41801...@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com you wrote:
Um... my feeling is that if one is going to declare a variable
inside a #ifdef then that variable ought to be called something
like
int indx_CONFIG_COOL_FEATURE
and
u32 indx_CONFIG_HOT_FEATURE
Dear Peter Barada,
In message 1239250418.4414.72.ca...@blackhole you wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 22:40 -0400, cmfai...@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
We bought a MPC8360E-RDK development kit to develop applications under
MontaVista CGE5.0. We were toldby the consultant whose doing our board
Hi,
Gupta Maneesh-B18878 wrote:
Hi Francesco,
Could you make any progress?
Regards
Maneesh
-Original Message-
From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de
[mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Michael Trimarchi
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 2:46 PM
To: Rendine
76 matches
Mail list logo
