Dear Matthias,
Matthias Ludwig wrote:
> Wolfgang, Dirk,
>
> cause for this patch was originally the plan to bring my company's new
> omap3-based platform into U-Boot. As we do use other CS for a network
> chip this patch was intended to be the starting point (otherwise our
> patchset will not app
Hi,
Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> Dear Scott Wood,
>>>
>>> In message <4a034b09.7030...@freescale.com> you wrote:
> Or what replaced the "immr" structs?
The device tree, mainly...
>>> Right, of course.
>>>
... But #defines can work fo
Hi,
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Scott Wood,
>>
>> In message <4a034b09.7030...@freescale.com> you wrote:
Or what replaced the "immr" structs?
>>> The device tree, mainly...
>>
>> Right, of course.
>>
>>> ... But #defines can work for u-boot.
>>
>> Of course they _
Dear Matthias,
In message <20090508084234.ga6...@ultratronik.de> you wrote:
>
> cause for this patch was originally the plan to bring my company's new
> omap3-based platform into U-Boot. As we do use other CS for a network
> chip this patch was intended to be the starting point (otherwise our
> p
Wolfgang, Dirk,
cause for this patch was originally the plan to bring my company's new
omap3-based platform into U-Boot. As we do use other CS for a network
chip this patch was intended to be the starting point (otherwise our
patchset will not apply).
I can prepare a big #define -> c_struct patch
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
>
> In message <4a034b09.7030...@freescale.com> you wrote:
>>> Or what replaced the "immr" structs?
>> The device tree, mainly...
>
> Right, of course.
>
>> ... But #defines can work for u-boot.
>
> Of course they _can_ work. But the
Dear Scott Wood,
In message <4a034b09.7030...@freescale.com> you wrote:
>
> > Or what replaced the "immr" structs?
>
> The device tree, mainly...
Right, of course.
> ... But #defines can work for u-boot.
Of course they _can_ work. But they can easily fail (as we just see
On 09:11 Thu 07 May , Matthias Ludwig wrote:
> This is not really a change. The cs configuration was correct, but not
> the naming of it.
>
> OMAP34XX_GPMC_BASE (0x6e00) + 0x150 = base address of configuration
> registers for GPMC-CS5 not GPMC-CS6.
so please fix the comment
Best Regards,
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Scott,
>
> In message <4a0333fc.6090...@freescale.com> you wrote:
>> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> Finally, and this is what I really compalin about, is that there is no
>>> big structure which includes all the blocks that make up the CPU into
>>> one big structure (as it's
Dear Scott,
In message <4a0333fc.6090...@freescale.com> you wrote:
> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Finally, and this is what I really compalin about, is that there is no
> > big structure which includes all the blocks that make up the CPU into
> > one big structure (as it's done for example for PowerPC
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Finally, and this is what I really compalin about, is that there is no
> big structure which includes all the blocks that make up the CPU into
> one big structure (as it's done for example for PowerPC systems in the
> include/asm-ppc/*immap* files) - you still use code like
Dear Dirk,
In message <4a02fb34.2090...@googlemail.com> you wrote:
>
> > Please provide proper C structs!
>
> Would you like to have a look to the code snippet visible in Matthias'
> patch
>
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-May/052157.html
>
> ?
Done.
> It's my understanding tha
Dear Wolfgang,
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Matthias Ludwig,
>
> In message <20090507071155.ga8...@ultratronik.de> you wrote:
>> This is not really a change. The cs configuration was correct, but not
>> the naming of it.
>>
>> OMAP34XX_GPMC_BASE (0x6e00) + 0x150 = base address of configuration
Dear Matthias Ludwig,
In message <20090507071155.ga8...@ultratronik.de> you wrote:
> This is not really a change. The cs configuration was correct, but not
> the naming of it.
>
> OMAP34XX_GPMC_BASE (0x6e00) + 0x150 = base address of configuration
> registers for GPMC-CS5 not GPMC-CS6.
Can w
ACKed
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Ludwig [mailto:mlud...@ultratronik.de]
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:42 PM
> To: Pillai, Manikandan
> Cc: Dirk Behme; u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP3EVM: net_chip uses CS5 not CS6
>
> This is not really a change. The cs con
This is not really a change. The cs configuration was correct, but not
the naming of it.
OMAP34XX_GPMC_BASE (0x6e00) + 0x150 = base address of configuration
registers for GPMC-CS5 not GPMC-CS6.
best regards,
Matthias
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 12:34:01PM +0530, Pillai, Manikandan wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dirk Behme [mailto:dirk.be...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:25 PM
> To: Matthias Ludwig; Pillai, Manikandan
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP3EVM: net_chip uses CS5 not CS6
>
> Matthias Ludwig wrote:
> > Signed-off-by:
Matthias Ludwig wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Ludwig
Matthias: Thanks for fixing this!
Mani: Can we get your ack as EVM maintainer?
Many thanks and best regards
Dirk
> ---
> board/omap3/evm/evm.c| 16
> include/asm-arm/arch-omap3/cpu.h |5 +++--
> 2 file
Signed-off-by: Matthias Ludwig
---
board/omap3/evm/evm.c| 16
include/asm-arm/arch-omap3/cpu.h |5 +++--
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board/omap3/evm/evm.c b/board/omap3/evm/evm.c
index c008c2e..5fd5efa 100644
--- a/board/omap
19 matches
Mail list logo
