On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:55:18PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> On 24 July 2017 at 00:41, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:48:53PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > > On 19 July 2017 at 12:53, Tom Rini wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at
On 24 July 2017 at 00:41, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:48:53PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > On 19 July 2017 at 12:53, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:44:48PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > > > On 18 July 2017 at 22:32, Tom
On 24 July 2017 at 00:41, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:48:53PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > On 19 July 2017 at 12:53, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:44:48PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > > > On 18 July 2017 at 22:32, Tom
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:48:53PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> On 19 July 2017 at 12:53, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:44:48PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > > On 18 July 2017 at 22:32, Tom Rini wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at
On 19 July 2017 at 12:53, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:44:48PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > On 18 July 2017 at 22:32, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:33:08PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:44:48PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> On 18 July 2017 at 22:32, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:33:08PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review.
> > >
> > > On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini
Andy,
On 14 July 2017 at 17:30, Andy Yan wrote:
> Hi:
>
> 2017-07-13 15:33 GMT+08:00 Bin Chen :
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM
On 18 July 2017 at 22:32, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:33:08PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
> > On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM +1000, Bin Chen
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 05:33:08PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> >
> > > It's my understanding that we are supposed to use booti,
Hi:
2017-07-13 15:33 GMT+08:00 Bin Chen :
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> >
> > > It's my understanding that we are supposed to use
Hi:
2017-07-13 15:33 GMT+08:00 Bin Chen :
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> >
> > > It's my understanding that we are supposed to use
On 14 July 2017 at 00:55, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Bin Chen wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
> > On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at
On 14 July 2017 at 00:06, Daniel Thompson
wrote:
> On 13/07/17 08:33, Bin Chen wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini tr...@konsulko.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Bin Chen wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
>>
>> > It's my understanding that we are supposed to use
On 13/07/17 08:33, Bin Chen wrote:
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the review.
On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini > wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> It's my understanding that we are supposed to use booti, instead
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the review.
On 13 July 2017 at 04:25, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
>
> > It's my understanding that we are supposed to use booti, instead of
> bootm,
> > for arm64 image. But booti lacks of android image
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 03:56:04PM +1000, Bin Chen wrote:
> It's my understanding that we are supposed to use booti, instead of bootm,
> for arm64 image. But booti lacks of android image support. Bootm has
> the andriod image support but lack of the arm64 image handling.
>
> So, what is suppose
It's my understanding that we are supposed to use booti, instead of bootm,
for arm64 image. But booti lacks of android image support. Bootm has
the andriod image support but lack of the arm64 image handling.
So, what is suppose the right way of booting an android arm64 image?
or, should we create
18 matches
Mail list logo