On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 16:45 -0600, John Rigby wrote:
Regarding 512x psc register maps:
The register map for 5125 does not just change the size of the registers.
Some registers change locations. The issue is that the hardware guys
decided to fix the old broken register access. The 5200,
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:54 +0200, Fortini Matteo wrote:
Yes, that's what we're currently using, but the problem is a little
broader: I should answer to CAN messages in at most 100-200ms from
powerup, and that can be done in u-boot.
if you are in that interval you definitely need to go to a
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 07:47 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Scott,
In message 20090728225244.ga8...@b07421-ec1.am.freescale.net you wrote:
The patch title is bad -- it's not disabling warnings, it's disabling an
aspect of C99 that the code is incompatible with (and which is pretty
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 20:01 +0530, Aggrwal Poonam-B10812 wrote:
I could not understand common/memsize.c, how it works?
It writes markers at specific memory locations and then reads
these back. The algorithm is chosen to be fast but still to
be able to detect mirrored address ranges
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 21:06 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message 1247495041-8605-3-git-send-email-ga...@kernel.crashing.org you
wrote:
The version of dlmalloc we are using generates a fair number of warnings
of the following form:
warning: dereferencing pointer
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 12:00 -0400, jeffery palmer wrote:
There are quite a few additions you can achieve with a TCP stack but of
course it needs to be very clean and well tested.
http://www.sics.se/~adam/uip/uip-1.0-refman/
I used it before on a small arm platform (small =16k ram) and used
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 17:04 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear cmfai...@rockwellcollins.com,
In message
of8fd4848e.6ec6cc4f-on852575d2.004c617a-852575d2.004d5...@rockwellcollins.com
you wrote:
ARCH and CROSS_COMPILE are set and exported
(ARCH=ppc, CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux-)
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 17:59 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Kenneth Johansson,
In message 1244733541.4182.81.ca...@localhost.localdomain you wrote:
ARCH and CROSS_COMPILE are set and exported
(ARCH=ppc, CROSS_COMPILE=powerpc-linux-)
...which is plain wrong. powerpc-linux
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 23:14 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear kenneth johansson,
In message 1230636057.17914.5.ca...@duo you wrote:
Only print out the target name during make.
For old style set V=1
What is the rationale for this patch? I can see no real advantage
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 04:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i dont really like how the changes are integrated. it'll require constant
maintenance to add these QUIET prefix vars. is there a reason we cant go the
opposite direction and set CC/etc... directly ? or try unifying things with
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 06:15 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 31 December 2008 05:06:51 kenneth johansson wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 04:46 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i.e. drop all of the $(AR) calls in board/*/Makefile and replace it with
a toplevel pattern kind of like
make.
For old style set V=1
Signed-off-by: kenneth johansson kenn...@southpole.se
---
Makefile | 34
api/Makefile |2 +-
api_examples/Makefile |2 +-
board/AtmarkTechno/suzaku/Makefile|2
Only print out the target name during make.
For old style set V=1
Signed-off-by: kenneth johansson kenn...@southpole.se
---
For size reason this is a binary attachment. it uncompress to
244227 bytes and max for this list is 100k
0001-make-make-quiet.patch.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed
On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 11:48 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear kenneth johansson,
In message 1230625526.12143.24.ca...@duo you wrote:
For size reason this is a binary attachment. it uncompress to
244227 bytes and max for this list is 100k
BINARY ATTACHMENT IGNORED.
PLEASE READ
Only print out the target name during make.
For old style set V=1
Signed-off-by: kenneth johansson kenn...@southpole.se
---
actual patch at
http://www.4shared.com/file/78174399/3496e05d/0001-make-make-quiet.html
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 22:41 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear John Rigby,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
I'm not sure this right way to deal with this. Even with the modified
offset the 1.5 silicon linux nand driver will not work correctly with
the 2.0 silicon nand controller.
16 matches
Mail list logo
